1953-12-14

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with respect to the export of Canadian oats to the United States.
Hon. members will recall that earlier this year President Eisenhower directed the United States tariff commission to make an investigation under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act for the purpose of determining whether oats are being or are practically certain to be imported into the United States under such conditions and in such quantities as to render or tend to render ineffective or materially interfere with the price-support program undertaken by the United States Department of Agriculture. Although it would not have been appropriate for the Canadian government itself to appear before the United States tariff commission on this occasion, representations were made to the commission by Mr. George Mclvor, chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, on behalf of western producers who sell oats to the United States through the board. From time to time members of the Canadian government have expressed to members of the United States government grave concern about the adverse effects on relations between the two countries of a decision to limit imports of Canadian oats into the United States.
We have now been advised that the tariff commission has made its report to the President and that this report recommends restrictions on imports of oats into the United States. It was, of course, hoped that the President would not find it necessary to act upon this report. It can be taken for granted that both governments wish, if possible, to avoid getting into restrictions and counterrestrictions.
President Eisenhower immediately requested our co-operation toward the solution of this exceptional and urgent problem and we discussed the matter with representatives of the United States administration who came to Ottawa to discuss this subject as well as plans for the forthcoming meeting of the joint United States-Canadian trade committee. The
United States officials outlined the problem resulting from imports of a commodity which was being acquired by the United States government under its price-support policy. We, on our part, outlined the problems that would be created for Canada by the imposition by the United States, for an indefinite period, of import controls on such an important commodity as oats.
We understood their problem; I believe they understood ours. Having in mind the extremely serious consequences which would result to both countries from the imposition of import controls on oats into the United States, consequences extending beyond trade in oats and extending far into the future, we reached a temporary arrangement whereby Canada undertook to limit exports of oats to the United States to a reasonable quantity for a relatively short period.
I shall now read the text of the letters exchanged between our two governments: Washington, December 7, 1953 The Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Secretary,
During the past several months, the government of the United States has been faced with problems of increasing seriousness in connection with the accumulation of surplus agricultural products. These mounting surpluses, and the financial burden they entail, may well threaten to disturb orderly marketing arrangements which it is to the interest of both Canada and the United States to maintain.
The special circumstances affecting the problem of oats make it a matter of particular urgency requiring exceptional treatment. We believe that unless steps are taken to assure that imports of oats will not be such as to interfere with the orderly marketing of oats in the United States, a critical situation will develop which could be damaging to the farming industry of our two countries. It is our suggestion that shipments of oats from Canadian ports of shipment to the United States should not exceed 23,000,000 bushels during the period from midnight December 10, 1953, to midnight September 30, 1954.
As you know, Canada supplies almost the whole of the United States imports of oats and only small quantities come from other countries.
You are of course aware that the larger problem associated with accumulations of surplus agricultural products and related questions of agricultural policy are currently under review with the aim of arriving at longer-term solutions of a constructive character.
Having in mind the desirability of maintaining, as in the past, the closest collaboration between the governments of Canada and the United States in matters of common concern, President Eisenhower has asked me to seek the co-operation of the Canadian government in this matter. The President is

Oats
most anxious that a solution be found which will cause the least possible damage to trade relations between our two countries.
Sincerely yours,
W. Bedell Smith,
Acting Secretary of State.
Ottawa, December 10, 1953. The Honourable W. B. Smith,
Acting Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.
My dear Mr. Acting Secretary,
The government of Canada has given careful consideration to your letter of December 7th regarding the urgent situation which is giving concern to your government with respect to the marketing of oats. The Canadian government attaches the greatest importance to the extension of mutually profitable trade between our two countries and to avoidance of restrictions which would interfere with such trade. However, in a desire to meet President Eisenhower's request for co-operation in a solution to this urgent problem, the Canadian government has decided, as a temporary measure, and without obligation, to take all practicable steps to limit shipments of Canadian oats to the United States to the extent and for the period suggested in your letter. In taking this action, the Canadian government is aware of the fact that your government is now reviewing its agricultural policies with a view to finding longer-term solutions of a fconstructive nature.
The Canadian government takes note of the information in your letter, that Canada supplies almost the whole of the United States imports of oats and only small quantities come from other countries. The Canadian government wishes to make clear that it will reconsider the decision set forth in this letter in the event that substantial quantities of oats are imported into the United States from other countries during the period in question. The Canadian government assumes that in this event the government of the United States will itself also wish to review the situation.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Martin,
Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Hon. members will note that Canada has undertaken to limit the shipment of Canadian oats to the United States to 23 million bushels during the period from midnight December 10, 1953, to midnight September 30, 1954. Such a limitation is not desirable and has only been undertaken by Canada as the lesser of evils. Nevertheless, it is not a limitation which should cause significant concern to the producers of oats during the short period that it is in effect. Oats are not in over-abundant supply in Canada. The 1953 crop was 61 million bushels less than in 1952. Domestic demand is strong and exports since the opening of the crop year have been heavy. Assuming that the 23 million bushels do move to the United States, the quantity of 1953 oats on hand when the 1954 crop begins to move is likely to be smaller than the quantity on hand at the same time in 1953.
Our government is not at all happy about a situation of this kind, which can only be resolved by measures which are contradictory of the principles upon which trade has been

developed between Canada and the United States. It has been the hope of the Canadian government that the United States government would, in its own interest, and in the interests of the free world, decide not to impose any further restrictions on imports. We may take encouragement from the announced intention of the United States government to review its agricultural policies in an attempt to find longer-term solutions of a constructive nature.
Perhaps it will be said that on this occasion we should have refused to co-operate. We weighed the risks and came to the conclusion that, since we could without significant harm to our exports enable the United States government to surmount what may prove to be a temporary difficulty, we should meet their wishes. There is no undertaking by Canada beyond September 30, 1954.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister what total supply of oats is available for domestic and export trade in Canada at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can only say that the visible supply is unusually small. We think it may be somewhat of a problem to accumulate sufficient oats to supply the eastern market during winter months. Supplies at bay ports are only some 6 million bushels. We think this restriction on exports is not going to cause serious practical difficulties.


Mr. Harkness:: I wonder if the minister could tell us what this cut will mean. In other words, what were our exports on the average over the last three years to the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not these figures available but last year was a record year for exports and with the 23 million bushels to come we will export only a little less in 1953-54 than we did in 1952-53. I must remind the hon. member that oats from the 1952-53 crop were all sold. Final payment has been made. Oats were not a problem last year and we do not expect them to be a problem this year.



FLAGS OF CANADA


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 84, respecting flags of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Bona Arsenault: It is desirable that Canada possess a national flag and this bill suggests the procedure for achieving that purpose.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
86a.

Inquiries of the Ministry
EXPLOSIVES ACT	GRAIN



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING IMPORTS, OFFENCES, CERTIFICATES, ETC.

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), to amend the Explosives Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) a question of which I have given him notice. Will the government give consideration to relaxing C.M.H.C. building specifications so that the Avro workers' housing plan may proceed as originally planned?


Hon. Robert H. Winiers (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which has reference to negotiations between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Vista Development Corporation. Since this corporation first approached C.M.H.C. there has been no change in the defence workers' regulations, nor have there been any modifications in the National Housing Act minimum building standards which affect the proposed housing project.
I am told by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that originally the main contentious item was in respect to the regulations which provided that a four-room bungalow should have no more than 835 square feet of liveable floor area, whereas the A. V. Roe workers wished to build a four-room bungalow with over 1,000 square feet, which is more space per room than was contemplated when parliament established the policy whereby the C.M.H.C. could make 90 per cent direct loans for war workers who wished to have homes built according to minimum standards under the regulations.
The other points raised by the A. V. Roe workers are related to their wish to build to a lesser standard than the prescribed National Housing Act minimum building standards. I believe that the regulations and the minimum standards are reasonable.



INSPECTION AND SALE TO CONSUMER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker-, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The question is this: I understand that when the grain board buys grain it buys it at a certain grade. When the grain is sold to the consumer has he no protection with respect to the grain, or does the consumer have to accept any trash contained in the grain he buys?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board of grain commissioners exercises control and inspection out of licensed terminal elevators. The supervision of the board ends when the grain is inspected and put into cars. The board stands behind its grade certificate as far as. delivery to the cars is concerned.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Will the minister say whether the new Food and Drugs Act which was passed at the last session of parliament has yet been proclaimed?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the
answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the minister say whether the department has taken steps to recruit the personnel necessary to carry out the inspection required by the new act. I refer to the inspection that will be required with respect to the conditions under which food is processed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are now in the process
of recruitment, and also we are now engaged in the framing of the regulations to be operative under the act, proclamation of which we hope will take place some time either in the month of May or in June next.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the

Questions
Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) a question of which I have given him notice. Has the minister, in the light of certain complaints made by the Canadian Legion branches in New Brunswick regarding Canadian prisoners of war claims, given consideration to extending the deadline date of December 31, 1953, for such applications or intentions to apply?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question and I asked the secretary of the commission to find out if any considerable number of applicants would not have applied by the end of the year. If we find that there is any likelihood of there being any hardship in that regard I am prepared to ask my colleagues to consider extending the period. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that the commission regard a letter of inquiry as an application and the date of the letter is the date of the application even though formalities are not carried out. I should not think, in the circumstances, it should be very difficult to get letters of inquiry in before December 31.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Oueens):: Mr Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Has consideration been given to extending these benefits to personnel of the services who escaped from prisoner of war camps and were in enemy territory for a long time? For instance, I have in mind an air force officer whom I know and who escaped from a German prisoner of war camp and fought with the underground in Poland for two years. As the situation stands now, he would not be eligible for benefits during that period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I really
cannot say whether or not consideration has been given to such cases. However, if the hon. gentleman would let me know of any, I would undertake to ask the chief commissioner to look at them.



QUESTIONS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of non-contributory service pensions, (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150 or over per month?
4.	How many are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory, (a) $25.01 to $29.99

per month; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month; (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150 or over per month?




Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has any provision yet been made for any increase in the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
2.	Has any reconsideration been given by the government at any time since the matter was last discussed in the House of Commons on May 12, 1953, to increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, discussed with the government the possibility of the amount of the said basic pension being increased? If so, are there any records of such discussions?
4.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to approve of the Canadian National Railways increasing the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what was the government's answer?
5.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways, at any time since May 12, 1953, asked the government to take the responsibility for providing an increase in the amount of the said basic pension? If so, what reply has the government made to any such request?
6.	If no decision has yet been taken on this matter by the government, is the matter now under consideration?
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the other day
the minister asked me if I would allow these two questions to stand, or rather if I would withdraw them until next year. At the time he asked me that question I thought of next year as being a long way off, but since it is only about three weeks away I do not mind accommodating him. I am prepared to withdraw these two questions and put them on the order paper again next year, three weeks from now.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions withdrawn.



WHEAT EXPORTS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How much wheat, in bushels and dollar value, has been exported by Canada to the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Italy, Greece and Turkey, during the past four crop years, and during the current crop year to date?
2.	What is the dollar value of imports to Canada from these countries during the same period?
3.	How much wheat, in bushels and dollar value, has been exported by Canada to India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Indo-China, Malaya and Japan, during the past four crop years, and during the current crop year to date?
4.	What is the dollar value of imports to Canada from these countries during the same period?


Mr. Dickey:: 1	and 3. See statement attached.
2	and 4. See statement attached.
1 and 3.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Section. Ottawa, Dec. 4, 1953
Statement showing Exports of wheat from Canada to specified countries during the years ended July 31, 1950 to 1953, and the period August 1 to October 31, 1953
Country	Year 1950	Year 1951	Year 1952	Year 1953	August 1 to October 31, 1953	Bushel	Value	Bushel	Value	Bushel	Value	Bushel	Value	Bushel	Value$	$	$	$	$United Kingdom	112,662,791	227,129,530	76,069,034	145,275,268	108,355,403	197,406,875	101,287,370	197,141,720	27,713,288	55,588,032France	-	-	248,767	628,398	6,203,614	13,237,157	1,420,285	2,381,305	425,342	744,349Germany West	-	-	145,227	326,408	12,605,336	21,917,539	24,189,417	46,534,109	6,145,444	12,716,740Italy	734,615	1,571,824	7,400,944	13,894,381	15,231,223	28,998,795	13,943,366	26,472,585	1,440,134	2,836,555Greece	-	-	-	-	341,732	584,362	1,051,672	1,798,360	-	-Turkey	4,103,788	8,125,972	367,125	917,812	-	-	-	-	-	India	674,613	1,371,055	11,403,267	20,349,556	16,490,112	31,821,368	15,340,739	28,268,392	4,927,065	8,862,325Pakistan	-	-	-	-	-	-	13,357,053	28,376,359	16,068	36,114Ceylon	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	_Indo-China	-	-	-	-	-	-	_	Malaya	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Japan	5,075,500	12,092,436	10,569,933	19,616,573	17,111,373	36,040,705	13,264,432	26,801,070	12,699,154	25,120,964
Questions

Questions
2 and 4.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-External Trade Section
Ottawa, December 4, 1953
Statement showing values of imports into Canada from specified countries during the years ended July 31, 1950 to 1953, and the month of August 1953.
Country	Year 1950	Year 1951	Year 1952	Year 1953	Month of ** August 1953$	$	$	$	$United Kingdom	334,753,090	452,224,318	348,589,572	430,907,016	38,408,502France	12,224,642	21,416,346	21,602,315	21,369,838	1,558,239Germany West	8,139,355	22,177,989	26,081,691	29,093,994	3,303,659Italy	8,153,859	13,320,113	11,894,766	13,138,266	1,472,915Greece	164,525	200,088	164,683	211,017	13,651Turkey	740,781	1,717,144	2,858,665	1,096,233	38,316India	33,835,427	42,674,010	27,968,913	25,817,365	2,390,858Pakistan	1,378,845	2,431,597	629,048	335,152	59,457Ceylon	14,628,290	19,617,607	11,863,624	13,997,898	1,034,721Indo-China	-	57	-	966	-Malaya	15,399,160	57,851,090	35,248,616	21,673,660	1,518,151Japan	9,554,395	12,970,663	11,970,433	13,808,443	1,104,807
** Later figures not available.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING EMPLOYEES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How are rates of pay determined in the case
of employees (a) professional:	(b) clerical; (c)
others, of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	What was the date of the last increase in pay for the employees noted above?
3.	How do the rates of pay in the case of the employees noted above compare with rates of pay in the case of classified civil servants doing comparable work?
4.	Are the rates of pay of the above-noted employees under review at the present time, with a view to increases in the same?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	The rates of pay for all employees are determined by the executive committee of the board of directors in accordance with section 14 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
2.	October 1, 1953.
3.	Believed to be comparable.
4.	No.



CUSTOMS OFFICES CLOSED AND OPENED

Mr. While (Middlesex East):: How many customs offices have been (a) closed; (b) opened, in each of the provinces of Canada

since January 1, 1948 to date, and in each case?		in what locations


Mr. McCann:: (a)	Closed	(b) Opened^Newfoundland 	.. 10	-Nova Scotia 	. 2	1Prince Edward Island -	-New Brunswick ...	,. 2	2Quebec	,. 8	3Ontario 	2Manitoba 	, . 	-Saskatchewan 	. . 1	-Alberta 	, . 	-British Columbia ...	.. 1	5Yukon Territory ..,	.. 1	--	
25	13
*At time of federation 36 customs offices were taken over of which 10 have since been closed.
Newfoundland
The following offices were taken over at the time of federation with Newfoundland: Argentia	Botwood
Bay Roberts	Buchans
Bell Island	Burgeo
Bonne Bay	Burin

Carbonear	Harbour Buffett
Catalina	Harbour Grace
Clarenville	Lewisporte
Corner Brook	Marystown
Fogo	Port au Port
Fortune	Port aux Basques
Gander	Port Union
Glovertown	Ramea
Goose Airport	Rose Blanche
Grand Bank	St. Anthony
Grand Falls	St. John's
Greenspond	St. Lawrence
Harmon Field	St. Mary's
Harbour Breton	Stephenville Crossing
Since that time,	the following offices have
been closed:	
Bonne Bay	Port au Port
Fogo	Port Union
Glovertown	Ramea
Greenspond	Rose Blanche
Marystown	St. Mary's
Nova Scotia	
Offices Closed	Offices Opened
Isaac's Harbour	Dingwall
Sherbrooke	
Prince Edward Island	
No offices were	closed or opened in this
province.	
New Brunswick	
Offices Closed	Offices Opened
Brown Road	Mars Hill Road
Connors	Beaconsfield
Quebec	
Beauceville East	Blackpool
Blanc Sablon	Noranda
Henrysburg	Val d'Or
Jonquiere	
La Tabatiere	
Mingan	
North Derby	
Ste. Anne des Monts	
Ontario	
None	Meaford
	Oakville
Manitoba	
None	None
Saskatchewan	
Melfort	None
Alberta	
None	None
British Columbia
Silver Heights	Campbell River
Chilliwack Chopaka Kitimat Sandspit
83276-55J
Questions Yukon Territory
Offices Closed	Offices Opened
White Pass	None



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B. C.  REPEATER STATIONS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Are the repeater stations on the northern British Columbia and Yukon lines of the government telegraph and telephone system included in the sale of the said system to the British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian National Telegraph Company?
2.	If so, to which company will they be sold?
3.	By whom will they be operated?
4.	How many such stations are there, where are they located, and when were they built, respectively?
5.	What was the total cost of construction?



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B. C.  EQUIP- MENT AND COST

Mr. Fulton:: In connection with the government telegraph and telephone system in British Columbia and the Yukon:
1.	How many telephones are there in use on the whole system?
2.	How many exchanges, with how many switchboards respectively, and where is each located?
3.	How many poles?
4.	How many miles of wire?
5.	How many miles of copper wire?
6.	What is the net cost (installed) of the above totals of telephones, exchange switchboards, poles (with insulators and pole hardware) and wire respectively?



GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B. C.  SERVICE, RATES, ETC.

Edmund Davie Fulton: In connection with the projected sale of the government telegraph and telephone service system in British Columbia and the Yukon to the British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian National Telegraph Company respectively:
1.	What assurances have been given or are being required from the British Columbia Telephone Company regarding the continuation of telephone service on branch lines?
2.	What, if anything, is being written into the agreement of sale concerning the principles by which the purchasers will be bound with respect to, or the conditions under which they will be entitled to demand, an increase in rates?
3.	What arrangements have been made or are contemplated to ensure that the transfer is made with the minimum disadvantage to present employees of the government system relative to continuation in employment in their present positions or in positions of similar status with the new owners, and with respect to their superannuation rights?
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I arranged with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to have certain discussions with his departmental officials with regard to these questions. I have not been able to complete those discussions. Under the circumstances might I ask that those questions stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Questions stand.

Questions



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS-SERVICE TO GOLD MINES

Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	What gold mines in northern Ontario have used the facilities and services of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys other than those of the mining branch?
2.	What is the nature of the facilities and services used by these mines?
3.	What is the estimated annual cost to the government of all the services rendered to the gold mines of Ontario by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	None, other than making use of maps which are available to the public.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



TRAINING IN CANADA


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How	many	persons have	been	trained	in
Canada under the Colombo plan, during each year of its operation?
2.	How	many	persons have	been	trained	in
Canada under the United Nations technical assistance program, during each year of its operation?


Mr. Pinard:: 1.	In 1951, 59 trainees; in 1952, 41 trainees; in 1953, 60 trainees arrived in Canada.
2.	In 1950, 6 trainees; in 1951, 31 trainees; in 1952, 100 trainees; in 1953, 77 trainees arrived in Canada.



DREDGE P.W.D. 117-SALE

Mr. Coyle:: 1.	Did Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sell dredge P.W.D. No. 117 to the McNamara Construction Company Limited, Toronto?
2.	If so, what was the selling price?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2,000. Sale was contingent upon extending the removal date of the dredge until not later than June 30, 1954.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL FISCAL AGREEMENTS

Mr. Ealcer:: On what dates were the different fiscal agreements between the federal government and each of the nine signatory provinces signed?


Mr. Benidickson:: Newfoundland, September 22, 1952; Prince Edward Island, July 31, 1952; Nova Scotia, November 24, 1952; New Brunswick, August 13, 1952; Ontario, October 29, 1952; Manitoba, August 29, 1952; Saskatchewan, September 29, 1952; Alberta, September 22, 1952; British Columbia, July 10, 1952.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	What was the name of the firm that did aerial photography on the Fraser river estuary from Douglas island west, in 1951-1952?
2.	Who are the directors of the company?
3.	Has this firm any other public works contracts with the federal government at this time?
4.	If so, when were the contracts let and for what sum?
5.	What is the nature of these contracts?


NATURAL GAS IMPORTS
Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Has any natural gas been imported into Canada since 1949, from the United States or elsewhere?
2.	If so, what is the rate of duty on natural gas imported into Canada from the United States?
3.	Are there any other taxes, duties or levies on the importation of natural gas?
4.	What are the taxes or levies on the consumption of natural gas in Canada?
5.	How many cubic feet of natural gas have been imported into Canada, during each of the fiscal years ending on March 31 in each of the years 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, and to date in 1953?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Hahn:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged from January 1, 1952 to date, between the government of Canada, the city of New Westminster, New Westminster board of trade and other interested parties, regarding the construction of a bridge between New Westminster and Lulu island.



CAUSEWAY


Frederick George Hahn: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged from January 1, 1952 to date, between the government of Canada, the city of New Westminster, New Westminster board of trade and other interested parties, regarding the construction of a causeway between Annacis and Lulu island.



CONSERVATION


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause. May I say at the outset that on March 26, 1952, I moved a motion identical with the one I am moving today. At that time I gave a historical review of the movements that had taken place in the United

States and in Canada with respect to proposals for the development of conservation policies, and I put forward several proposals for the government's consideration. Then on January 2 of this year I moved a similar resolution and at that time largely indicated to the house the growing support in Canada from organizations, from interested persons and others for a national policy of conservation according to the terms of my resolution.
I now bring forward this resolution for several reasons, and I will give a few of them.
I move the resolution because of a great many evidences of the need for immediate action and of growing support for such a proposal in this country. I think that fact is obvious to anyone who has followed the discussion of the question in recent years and in recent months particularly by many organizations in this country.
The second reason I give for moving it is that this movement of which I am a member is particularly interested in the conservation of human and natural resources. In fact, all our policies and programs are based upon a sound policy of conservation of human and natural resources. My third reason for moving it is as a pioneer resident of the community of the Columbia river basin where developments are providing for possibly the largest regional planned conservation and utilization of natural resources in Canada; there is here possibly the largest unspoiled area remaining and that presents an opportunity to plan from almost the commencement of the development of the area for the conservation of its resources and their proper utilization. In that area we find an opportunity to enmesh our natural resources to the advantage of the people of Canada generally. There are water resources, power resources resulting therefrom, forestry resources, land resources and mineral resources. I might say at that point, Mr. Speaker, that for many years few Canadians have realized the great possibilities of the development of the Columbia river basin in Canada. Now it is being recognized by many people across this country that the Columbia river basin in British Columbia will represent the heartland of industry in British Columbia inside the next 25 years.
At this point I should like to say that in view of the great developments that are coming in that basin, which offer an opportunity for planned conservation and cooperation between federal and provincial governments and private industry, we are very fortunate in having the three present members of the international joint commission. We are very fortunate in having General McNaughton as chairman with his
Conservation
strong sense of the principles of equity and his administrative ability and scientific knowledge. We are very fortunate in having Mr. George Spence with his lengthy experience with prairie farm rehabilitation administration, his general understanding of human relations and his understanding of the problems of the smaller people who might be affected by the damming of rivers and human problems presented by these huge developments. We are also very fortunate in having Mr. Lucien Dansereau as a member of the Canadian section of the international joint commission, with his lifetime of experience in hydroelectric engineering practice and his knowledge of the problems involved in great water developments in this country.
Possibly I had better curb my natural tendency to talk about the Columbia river basin development at this stage, but I could not mention the subject of conservation without briefly referring to that development.
I have also moved the resolution because of some 45 years' personal interest in and practical application of the principles of forest conservation. I see that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) is interested in what I have to say, and I trust that later in the debate he will have something to say. I heartily agree with the statement made by that great person, Edmund Burke, many years ago when he said:
A great unwritten compact exists between the dead, the living and the unborn. We leave to the unborn a colossal financial debt, perhaps inescapable . . . Such an inviolate compact requires that we leave to the unborn something more than debts and depleted natural resources.
He must have been a very forward looking statesman to make a statement like that so many years ago.
As I said previously, I have always been interested in the conservation of trees. In my opinion trees are the towering pillars of conservation. Without trees large sections of the universe would be wasteland and desert. I think trees are essential for the proper development of any society. What do trees provide? They provide forest cover which prevents soil erosion of land by water and wind, which is very important to agriculture and navigation. While I am mentioning soil erosion, may I say that it is one of the problems that should be tackled as the result of a national policy devised through dominion-provincial conferences and cooperation.
I have in my hand a photostatic copy of a petition sent to the government in 1896 by the then residents of Kootenay constituency urging the federal and provincial governments to co-operate to prevent erosion on

Conservation
the Columbia river. Nothing much has been done toi date, and even at the present time some residents of my constituency, the municipality of Trail and other areas in my constituency, are suffering from the effects of erosion on the Columbia river. They have asked time after time for action by the federal and provincial governments to stop this erosion and prevent the destruction of land and other property. So far no action has been taken. The federal and provincial governments seem to avoid their responsibility in this respect, and there is great need for dominion-provincial co-operation because this is a problem that has to be faced in the very near future or we are going to see a great deal of increasing damage to the communities adjacent to our rivers and lake systems in this country.
Forests exert a strong measure of control on water flow by reducing surplus run-off. They lessen water waste, stimulate stream flow and naturally assure ground water supplies. We ail know that forests are very important to recreation, and also that wild life is largely dependent on forest cover. I make these few references to the value of forests because I believe that all conservation measures must be anchored to the pillars of conservation which I consider to be trees. Fortunately, more and more people are recognizing the need for a national conservation policy to provide co-operation between all governments and agencies in pursuit of that objective.
In passing I want to pay tribute to the many dominion and provincial officials, university staffs and private interests who have done so much good work or have attempted to do good work in this regard in recent years. However, owing to our lack of a national policy on conservation providing co-ordination and co-operation between governments, these human resources are not being recognized or utilized to the best advantage. One resource, the value of which has never been fully appreciated by many people, and I think by governments on the whole, is the men and women engaged in conservation activities in the federal and provincial governments, in universities and in many private organizations in this country. Throughout the years I have known many of them. Their intelligence and application to their work are one of our national assets, and many of them are shamefully underpaid in terms of what their intelligence and personalities would earn in the business world. I draw that particularly to the attention of the minister, and I see that he is listening with interest.
Once again I want to suggest, as I did on a previous occasion, an outline of action to

the government in this respect. First I suggest the establishment of sound standards of management and utilization of natural resources as a result of scientific advice and investigation. Second, I suggest the establishment and financing of research work, and the co-ordination of these activities with the work of public organizations and individuals. Third, I suggest the development of a coordinated educational program aimed at the development of interest and co-operation of all Canadians from early school days onward. My fourth point is a program of co-ordinated publicity that would utilize the facilities of the press, the national film board and public organizations. Fifth, I suggest the establishment of a uniform law enforcement program in connection with the conservation of wildlife and other resources. Sixth, I suggest the co-ordination of the activities of all governments at all levels with public organizations.
To give effect to a detailed program of that nature we would without a doubt have to have federal-provincial agreements to provide for the fair distribution of the costs of such a program. We would have to have an agreement as to responsibility for various aspects of administration of a national policy on conservation. I know that the natural resources of Canada are largely the responsibility of the provinces, but in mentioning an agreement as to financial responsibility between the federal and provincial governments I want to point out to the minister particularly that dominion-provincial responsibility in financing conservation programs is by no means a new field to be explored. Many precedents already exist where the dominion government has assisted the provinces, both financially and technically, on many phases of land rehabilitation and water conservation projects.
For instance, there was the Ontario soil survey in co-operation with the federal Department of Agriculture. There were the economic land studies made by the economic divisions of the departments of agriculture of the federal government and the Ontario government. There was the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act passed in 1935 which was brought into force to deal with a crisis at that time recognized to be of national importance.
Then there is the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act of 1948 which was passed to deal with a problem that was considered of sufficient importance to receive assistance from the federal treasury. Then there is the Canada Forestry Act of 1949 which has proved of considerable value since it was passed. I think that was a step in the right direction.

However, Mr. Speaker, we need a national policy of conservation to co-ordinate all these activities and to provide co-operation between all levels of government and private interests. In order to give effect to a national policy there should be, without a doubt, a federal-provincial agreement with respect to the financing of the administration of these policies.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house that while the government delays action in this matter it is an extremely urgent matter to a good many members in this house and a good many people outside the house. A number of important national organizations have been urging the necessity for a national conservation policy. The Canadian Forestry Association has been very active in this respect. The Agricultural Institute of Canada has made representations to the federal government on two or three occasions urging that a national council on soil and water conservation and land use be established on a joint dominion-provincial basis, with sufficient powers to implement programs according to the need across Canada.
Then, various labour organizations have urged the government, in their briefs, to give consideration to the various aspects of conservation. The Engineering Institute of Canada has shown considerable interest throughout the years in this question. Quite recently the Canadian Chamber of Commerce passed a most interesting resolution with respect to the development of a national conservation policy.
In view of the great public interest and need, the Canadian Forestry Association, which is Canada's oldest forestry and conservation association, is calling a public conference on policy for renewable resources, soils, waters, forests and wildlife. The purpose of this conference is to restate long-range policy for the management of our renewable natural resources. I understand the findings of this conference are to be presented to the cabinet as the considered opinion of nation-wide, public-spirited organizations in Canada. I am very glad to note that that conference is being called. I am heartened to know, from the correspondence I have received, that there are going to be about 75 national organizations in Canada sending delegates to that conference. These organizations want to correlate their ideas concerning a policy for the conservation of natural resources, and then have their opinions brought directly to the attention of this government.
This problem requires the understanding and participation of as many organizations
Conservation
and people as possible. Action to achieve full effectiveness must be organized. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I have moved this resolution on several occasions in this house. There must be organization and there must be leadership. In my opinion the federal and provincial governments might find here one of their greatest opportunities for unifying action, something which at times seems to have been sadly lacking. That is another reason, Mr. Speaker, for bringing this resolution before the house.
I am speaking briefly in order to give other members as much time as possible to express their opinions. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister and the government to give careful consideration to the terms of this resolution which has the support of a large number of the members of this house. As I said before, it has large support in the country because a growing number of organizations and people realize there is a necessity for organization and leadership on this question of a national conservation policy. In my opinion, if the march to disaster is to be halted the direction of the procession must be reversed by government leadership and government action.
Before concluding, I want to say something that I intended to say when I commenced my remarks. I want to congratulate the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage) on his appointment to his present position. Judging by the very capable way in which he performed his responsibilities as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, I am certain we can look forward to his administration of his department with the keenness of English mustard. I wish him success in all those things he undertakes which are to the general advantage of the Canadian people.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister wait until the debate has proceeded or will he reply now?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Resources and Development):: I did not consider I would be closing the debate; on the contrary I thought I would have an opportunity of opening the debate. First of all, I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for his compliment on my appointment and his good wishes. He, and other hon. members in this house, may rest assured that I shall do my utmost to discharge my responsibilities to the best of my ability.
The resolution which was proposed this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West urges the government to consider the advisability of calling a federal-provincial

Conservation
conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest, water conservation and land use for Canada. There can be few subjects of such great interest to this house and to Canadians generally, I agree, as the conservation of our natural resources. The importance of the subject is measured not only by what those resources mean today, both to Canada and our partners in the free world, but by what they will mean to future generations. The debate which took place when the resolution now before the house was introduced on previous occasions clearly revealed the recognition by all sides of the house of the importance of resources conservation. It is good to have attention drawn to this subject, and I should like to commend the hon. member for his deep interest in it and also for his participation in this campaign of an educational nature which is so necessary in this vast and important field.
The conservation of natural resources within a province is primarily a provincial responsibility and the federal government has no wish to invade that jurisdiction. As hon. members know, however, the federal government does assist the provinces in conservation projects, and by research and other means works towards a solution of the conservation problem. Before I review those activities I should like to say something about what the objectives of a resources conservation policy for Canada should be. There is general agreement in this country that a proper policy for the conservation of Canada's renewable natural resources must be to encourage the best utilization of our forests, soil and water resources, consistent with maintaining them on a sustained yield basis. We must strive to ensure that the annual depletion of these resources, whether by use or by wastage through fire, flood and disaster, does not exceed their replenishment either by natural means or by human assistance in the form of reforestation, fertilization and the like.
Over the years, this objective has been endorsed by conferences between the federal and provincial governments and many other groups. It has been endorsed also in speeches and statements by leaders of political parties, by representatives of industry, forestry associations, farmers and many others. I am sure that the necessity for achieving a sound conservation policy is more widely appreciated by Canadians today than ever before. Here again I wish to commend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for the great part he has taken in educating the people as to the necessity of conservation. Public understanding of the conservation [Mr. Lesage.l
problem is a most important advance toward our goal of managing our renewable resources so that they will be available in perpetuity.
Because the objective of conservation is to obtain the greatest benefit from our resources over the long run, it becomes the responsibility of all sections of the community. One reason for this of course is the fact that conservation may often require practices and involve costs which would not be necessary if the objective were the greatest immediate benefit and profit from our resources.
I believe there is wide agreement on the general principle that some of the cost of conservation should accordingly be borne by the taxpayers generally. Two questions arise however concerning the application of this principle. The first is the extent to which it should be applied, the degree to which the taxpayer should carry the burden of conservation. And the second is to decide what proportion of the burden should be carried by private enterprise, and what should be borne on the other hand by the taxpayers of the provinces and the taxpayers of the whole country. That is to say, how much of contributions to conservation costs should be made by provincial and municipal governments on the one hand, and how much by the federal government on the other hand. Questions of this kind are usually best solved by considering each case on its own merits rather than by attempting to lay down general principles, seeing that circumstances may vary widely from case to case.
I should like now to outline what the federal government has done recently and is doing to assist the provincial governments in conservation projects, and the principles upon which it has participated. I shall confine myself to those projects concerning forestry and water resources, because the subject of soil conservation is more appropriately a matter for my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I need only mention the great services rendered to Canada by the minister and his department through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act.
Let me speak first about what has been done under the Canada Forestry Act of 1949. This act provides, among other things, for the federal government to enter into an agreement with any province for the protection, development or utilization of its forest resources. In May of 1951 the government announced that it was prepared to enter into agreements with provincial governments for completing reliable forestry inventories in order to encourage reforestation. This step

was taken, recognizing first that a forestry inventory is a prerequisite for the successful planning of a sustained yield policy of forest management, and, secondly, that in certain areas the need for reforestation is acute for flood control, soil conservation and the like. In planning the agreements subsequently made, a federal-provincial conference was held in May of 1951, attended by forestry officials from each province and from the federal government.
Forest inventory agreements have been signed with seven provinces, the exceptions being Newfoundland, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. Under these agreements, which run to March 31, 1956, the federal government undertakes to pay to the provinces 50 per cent of the cost of completing inventories of the provincial forest resources, and 50 per cent of the cost of maintaining the inventories when completed. I may say that the progress made on these inventories has been very satisfactory, especially since most of the provinces had already made a good start on them.
As a matter of fact contributions from the federal treasury to the provinces for these various inventories amounted in the fiscal year 1951-52 to $666,000, in 1952-53 to $926,000, and the appropriation for the current fiscal year of 1953-54 is $1 million. I might as well say now that we might have to place an amount in the further supplementary estimates because it is probable that the million dollars already voted will not be sufficient to pay our share for what is being done this year.


Mr. Brooks:: In addition to forests, what is included in these inventories to which the minister has referred?


Jean Lesage: They are just forest inventories; that is all.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Just to find out how much timber there is?


Jean Lesage: Yes; to learn the extent and the value of the forest resources in each province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has nothing to do with wildlife at all?


Jean Lesage: No, nothing at all to do with wildlife, or with the budworm in New Brunswick, or reforestation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I had that in mind.


Jean Lesage: It is to know the extent of the forest resources in each province as well as their value.
Conservation
Five of the seven agreements-those with Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia-include agreements for undertaking reforestation. In addition, a reforestation agreement has been signed with Prince Edward Island. That is to say, we have reached reforestation agreements with six provinces.
The agreements on reforestation provide that the annual federal contribution to each province for reforestation will be equal to either 20 per cent of the province's expenditure for this purpose or the amount by which the provincial expenditure for the current year exceeds the average for the past three years, whichever is the lesser; and in addition the federal government will contribute 20 per cent of the cost of establishing any new provincial forest nursery.
In 1951-52 our expenditures under the heading of assistance to provinces for reforestation were of the order of $155,000, while in 1952-53, in round figures, the amount stood at $100,000. The appropriation for this year is $215,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are amounts also paid in connection with reforestation for the raising of seedlings in the provinces? Is that included?


Jean Lesage: Yes. I believe I made reference to forest nurseries.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And forest nurseries are included in this?


Jean Lesage: Yes. The federal government has also been making important contributions to forest conservation through forestry research and forest products research. Forestry research is carried on in Ottawa and through five district offices and five forest experimental stations located in different regions across Canada. It includes silviculture and forest management, forest inventories, and fire protection research. It provides information essential for reaching solutions to many problems involved in improving forest management.
Forest products research is conducted in two forest products laboratories, one in Ottawa and one in Vancouver. It deals with such matters as wood utilization, wood preservation, timber mechanics and wood chemistry. There is in addition an experimental sawmill in Ottawa. This forest products research is an important ingredient of a well-rounded conservation program, which must cover not only the growing forest but also the utilization of all parts of the tree, the preservation of wood and wood products, the substitution wherever possible of more common woods for those less common, and so on.
874

Conservation
In all this research there is full co-operation with the provinces and with the industries concerned, and these are kept fully informed of the findings made.
On the subject of forestry, I might mention finally the agreement the federal government has entered into with the province of New Brunswick, whereby it is to contribute one-third of the estimated cost of eliminating the budworm menace in the forests of that province.
May I mention now the work of the eastern Rockies forest conservation board. This board, which was established in 1947 by agreement between the federal government and the province of Alberta, has jurisdiction over an area of more than 8,600 square miles along the upper portions of the South Saskatchewan river and its tributaries. Its purpose is to achieve and maintain the most desirable conditions for watershed management in that area, and thereby to reduce flood waters in the spring and maintain maximum flow during the summer. The 25-year agreement provides among other things for the expenditure of $6,300,000 voted by parliament for capital improvements during the first six years.
I should like to outline next the action the government of Canada has taken to assist the provinces in the conservation of their water resources. The last session of parliament saw the passage of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, which gives the federal government authority to grant financial assistance to provincial governments for the construction of major water conservation projects. This act provides for federal contributions up to 37 J per cent of the cost of such projects, with the remaining portion of the cost being borne by the provincial government concerned or jointly by the provincial government and the local municipalities affected. It also provides, however, that the contribution of the federal government shall not be greater than that of the provincial government.
Before this act was passed, such assistance had already been given through special votes of parliament to various projects which were outside the scope of existing conservation acts. These projects, which included the Luther marsh and Shand dams in the Grand river watershed in Ontario, and the Fanshawe dam on the Thames river north of London, were considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant federal participation. Subject to funds being voted by parliament, we have also informed the government of Ontario that the federal government would assist financially in the construction of a conservation dam on the Conestogo river. The new act places this type of assistance on a statutory
[Mr. Lesage.J
basis and thus makes it available to all provincial governments. Certain proposals made by provincial governments under the terms of this act are now being investigated.
The review I have just made of what the federal government has been doing to assist the provinces in the conservation of their forest and water resources shows how important and many-sided the co-operative action on conservation problems now is. So far as extending these activities is concerned, the federal government would not wish to take any step which might appear to trespass upon the jurisdiction of the provinces over their natural resources. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) suggested during a previous debate on this resolution, using the expression "national policy"-which has been used time and time again this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge)-induces some people to think that there is some way in which the central authority is going to reach out and try to draw to itself some of the provincial jurisdiction. The government does not want to do that. We want to have this country continue under the constitution that was set up, and we do want to co-operate with the provinces.
The resolution asks that we consider calling a federal-provincial conference to bring about a greater degree of collaboration and co-operation. The government is quite prepared to consider that, but we do not think that such a conference would be likely to produce very great results were it held right away or on any large scale. Let us continue to demonstrate by our co-operation that there are no ulterior motives behind it and that it represents only a genuine desire of Canadian citizens, to whatever administration they belong, to help this generation of Canadians discharge the responsibility they have to future generations to see to it that the resources of this country are maintained and not depleted.
I would suggest that the responsibility of this house and of the government at present is to make sure that we have a sound and effective program in all the fields for which the federal government is responsible. We should work to develop the kind of longterm program that will carry out our responsibilities in these fields.
The co-operation that exists between the federal and provincial governments indicates that what is needed at the present time is not the calling of a conference, but steady progress along the lines on which we are already embarked. In future years, when further progress has been made, it might be

desirable to consider calling the kind of conference between the federal and provincial governments that this resolution proposes.
For the reasons I have just outlined-I want to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for having brought up the question again before this house-I do not believe that I can agree or that the government can agree that at this time we should take it upon ourselves to call a federal-provincial conference.
I am happy that the Canadian Forestry Association is calling a conference of national organizations who have an interest in conservation and I know that it is going to invite representatives of the federal and provincial governments. This conference is to be held this spring. Representatives of the Canadian Forestry Association are meeting with me on Friday at which time we will discuss the federal representation to the conference.
The house may rest assured that our representatives will participate with their knowledge and experience in the promotion of conservation in Canada through this channel of publicity offered by this conference being called by the Canadian Forestry Association.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion I wish to say that this matter of establishing a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada is not new to this House of Commons. In the thirties and forties, ever since 1935 when I first came here, this subject was always spearheaded by the late J. R. MacNicol, who covered it from every angle as it applied right across Canada. In the last parliament on numerous occasions the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Cavers) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and several others raised this issue. As far as the hon. member for Lincoln and I are concerned, we dealt principally with the lake shore erosion and the water levels on the lower great lakes. This, however, is now an international problem and is now under study by the international joint commission.
Our problem in Ontario, however, is by no means an international one. I am speaking of old Ontario, because with the exception of the Madawaska reforestation plan and one or two others, there is no plan for old Ontario. During the run-off periods the streams running into lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario are all Red rivers which can only be stopped by extending our reforestation scheme.
The province of Ontario for several years has had nurseries supplying trees but no proper plan in this regard exists in several 83276-56J
Conservation
districts, and I feel that a reforestation plan on a dominion-provincial and township level is the only answer. It would cost money but would pay immense dividends. It is quite safe to say that if the dominion government got down to this business and instituted the dominion and provincial plan and carried it out-here again I am speaking of older Ontario-and there were enough trees planted in the right spots, within five years after these trees were planted there would be 5 per cent less run-off, and in 20 or 25 years at the most there would be no more Red rivers in old Ontario.
I wish to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that in line with this proposed motion the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to establishing a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada; for I feel that this will commend itself to every hon. member of this house.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on having once again brought this particular motion before the house, and on asking for the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
I listened with great interest to the statement made by the minister and noted he said he was dealing only with forest and water conservation and was not going to deal with the matter of soil conservation. I hope that statement by the minister does not mean that the government is not going to deal with the matter of soil conservation in this debate, because, as far as I am concerned, the matter of soil conservation is of even more importance than forest and water conservation. Although the three aspects cannot be separated, I would like to have seen and would still like to see a statement from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, or some member of the government, in relation to the government's policy on soil conservation.
I am sorry the government is going to oppose this resolution which asks that it take the initiative in calling a dominion-provincial conference. The minister said that he did not think the important thing was to call a conference but that the need was to continue steady progress along the lines he outlined to the house.
I believe if one looks over the information available on our soil resources and reads the authorities on that subject one will be forced to the conclusion that Canada is losing the fight to conserve our soil resources. Instead of
87G

Conservation
maintaining our soil resources at the production level of some few years or a few generations ago, it is claimed by many authorities that Canada is losing this fight. It is no contribution to the solution of this problem to say that after all the matter of natural resources is within provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government is not going to do anything that might appear to be invading provincial jurisdiction, and then go on to outline policies of co-operation with the provinces which certainly will not cope with the situation at all.
We have heard this session and in past sessions far too many announcements by the federal government of various plans of cooperation with the provinces which are to be paid for on a 50-50 basis. This is a fine program for the federal government, which has the financial resources, but just standing up in parliament and announcing from time to time programs of co-operation with the provinces, when the provinces are called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost, means jeopardizing the financial resources of certain provinces and means that these will not be able to co-operate with the federal government in regard to certain plans.
I am not opposed to any dominion-provincial plans that have been announced. All I am saying is that by now raising the matter of dominion and provincial jurisdiction the government is raising a straw man.


Mr. Chevrier:: You do not live in the province of Quebec.


Hazen Robert Argue: What the federal government should do, as this motion suggests, is to call a conference and offer to co-operate with the provinces on joint programs and also offer at the same time to pay a far greater share of the cost. The federal government has invaded provincial jurisdiction many times, and is always prepared to invade provincial jurisdiction for an election.


Lionel Chevrier: It is often the other way round.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not in my experience.


Lionel Chevrier: In my experience it has been.


Hazen Robert Argue: In my experience the government is always very generous just before elections, but it never has any money right after the election. Before the election they have so much money that they take the stamp tax off cheques and then as soon as parliament sits after the election they want increases in the stamp rates in the Post Office Department. I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is wrong when he says they do these generous things right after the election instead of immediately before.

But these objections will do nothing to assist in the development of our forest, water and soil resources, which is the main reason why the hon. member for Kootenay West moved this motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nor will your contribution to this debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: If you will look over the history of farming in this old province of Ontario you will find that it is an excellent and wonderful province despite my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), and you will find, according to the experts, that there are 8,000 square miles of abandoned farm land in that province. At the present rate of reclamation it will take 800 years to reclaim that 8,000 square miles of abandoned farm land. These provinces need a program of forest, water and soil conservation. The ministers of the government are always afraid to invade provincial jurisdiction, but if you want soil conservation to take place in Canada, and the soil to be maintained and improved, you have to find a method to assist the farmer who is on the land. Unless you assist the farmer in soil conservation, you are not going to have our soil resources conserved. I believe that farmers need assistance. The Americans have found that they have had to inaugurate a specific program of soil conservation whereby the United States federal government paid certain sums of money to United States farmers to undertake specific soil conservation practices. The individual farmer often cannot afford conservation practices. Many farmers, especially in their younger days, have a mortgage against their farm and their immediate need is to extract from their farm the greatest possible annual net income. In order to do that farmers are forced to mine their soil. They are forced to raise cash crops. They cannot afford to undertake a long-term program of soil conservation, including regrassing and so forth, and by so doing postpone their income for a period of ten or twenty years, and as a consequence allow the mortgage interest rates to keep on climbing.
The most effective way or the easiest way in which to deplete our soil resources is to allow a drop in agricultural prices. The easiest way to get back to bad farming practices, and to get soil erosion of all kinds, is to allow the prices of agricultural products to fall to the point that the farmer cannot maintain even as good as the practices that he has been following in 1953. I am sure the minister will use his influence with his colleagues to see that there are followed policies which

will maintain agricultural prices. If you do do not maintain agricultural prices, you cannot conserve soil resources.
I see the minister smiling. I am sure if he asks a question such as that of any agricultural economist or any soil expert in Canada his answer will be that the thing that leads to good soil conservation or that will lead to good soil conservation most quickly is an adequate price for farm products. I may tell the minister that no less an authority than L. B. Thomson, director of prairie farm rehabilitation, stated that before adequate soil conservation measures can be undertaken by producers, it will be necessary for the federal government, in addition to an educational program, to undertake financial assistance for specific measures.
I believe that Canada should conserve its forest, water and soil resources not only because we need to maintain a high standard of living for this generation but also because we must conserve those resources for generations yet unborn. I think we need to conserve our resources in Canada for the benefit of all of the people of the world because throughout the world right now 70 per cent of humanity is hungry. Canada, perhaps more than any other nation, can help to solve that problem of hunger. If we are to help to solve the problem of world hunger, it follows that we must protect and conserve our soil resources so that we can keep on producing a great surplus of food.
I hope that some member of the government will get into this debate and will answer the question that will be uppermost in the minds of the people of Saskatchewan when they read of this debate on soil, water and forest conservation. That question is this: What does the federal government propose to do about that great water conservation project that has been talked about so long? I refer to the South Saskatchewan river project. I was disappointed that the minister did not deal with that particular subject.


Jean Lesage: He wanted to leave it to the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is very good of you, sir; but I do not happen to have the $66 million, or the $76 million, or the $86 million or the $186 million which various reports of this government say are necessary before that project can be undertaken. I think the people of Saskatchewan, in the recent election, decided that they might be able to achieve something more with regard to water conservation by voting for the party to which I belong than by voting for the political party to which the minister belongs.
Conservation


Lionel Chevrier: They also decided the result of the election.


Hazen Robert Argue: The people of Saskatchewan decided the result of the election in Saskatchewan. In my constituency they decided the result of the election in that constituency.


Jean Lesage: But not in all Canada, thank goodness.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure they will be disappointed if some minister of the government does not say what the government intend to do now about the South Saskatchewan river project. Does the fact that the minister did not mention it mean that the government have forgotten all about it? Does it mean that they stand by the estimates of the royal commission report?


Jean Lesage: It means nothing, as far as the hon. member's speech is concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: It means nothing? That is probably what the attitude of the government means. It has meant nothing in the past, it means nothing today and I am afraid it will keep on meaning nothing as far as this project is concerned.


An hon. Member:: That is the meaning of the hon. member's speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: If and when it is constructed, the South Saskatchewan dam will irrigate five hundred thousand acres of land. Water can be supplied to that area and production will be increased tremendously. In the past we of Saskatchewan have gone through periods of drought. We expect to go through dry periods again. To meet those periods of drought nothing would help us more than the construction of the South Saskatchewan project. The Saskatchewan government is ready to proceed, and always has been, but the federal government keep on procrastinating, building up one excuse after another and doing just about nothing. However, the federal government have not given up entirely. They are still spending some money. I do not know what it is for-probably for more surveys and more inquiries with regard to this project. According to sessional paper No. 104, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the federal government since April 1, 1953, down to the end of October has spent almost $200,000 in connection with the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. I see the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture is in his seat. I should like him to stand up and tell us and tell the people of Saskatchewan what the government's policy is going to be with regard to the South Saskatchewan river project.

Conservation
The hon. member for Kootenay West has brought this motion forward on two past occasions. Both times the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) entered the debate and seemed to give very sympathetic consideration to this problem. I hope the Prime Minister will enter the debate again. As far as our great conservation project is concerned, namely the South Saskatchewan river dam, we of Saskatchewan want something more than sympathetic consideration. We want the project. I am sorry the minister has announced that government members will vote against this motion because that is, in effect, what he has done. I hope the government will consider conservation very seriously-and I refer not only to soil conservation but to water conservation-and will announce at the present session its plans to go forward with the South Saskatchewan river project.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, any discussion brought about by the introduction of this resolution by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) cannot help but be beneficial to the resources of Canada in the conservation of our forests, our soil, our minerals, our water and our fish, both fresh and salt. We can understand the concern of the hon. member for Kootenay West over the need for planned conservation, for he has probably seen the wanton waste and destruction of our forests and soil by our lumbermen, farmers, hunters and others. What a heritage we really have, but how careless we are with the gifts showered on us by our Maker!
I know that the hon. member for Kootenay West has a great love for the land and forests of British Columbia, and doubtless this love also extends to the other provinces, for he does not want to see them devastated. If any hon. member has been fortunate enough to visit the office of the hon. member for Kootenay West and view the fine pictures of the magnificent country in which he lives and operates, he can well understand why the hon. member wishes to take steps to conserve those things with which we are blessed. Although millions of feet of lumber have been cut and processed in this district over the years, it has been done with an eye to the future, not merely the present, for as trees were cut seedlings were planted, thus building up a future for generations to come and, incidentally, through not denuding the hills and valleys of their trees the soil and water are retained and not washed away to the sea in helter-skelter fashion.
For every tree cut in this country, Mr. Speaker, another should be planted if we wish our lumber economy and our general

well-being to survive. The early settlers of this country might be forgiven for any damage they did which has brought about a need for a thorough conservation policy. When our forefathers came to America they found such unbelievable riches in soil, forests, mineral and other natural resources that they thought it inconceivable that such wealth could be dissipated. But over the years that has proven to be otherwise.
In the latter half of the twentieth century there is no excuse for further deterioration. We have ample knowledge and scientific methods at our command today to determine the characteristics of the soil and the adaptability of soil to various crops, grasses and trees. A fair example of this is the work done in Norfolk county, Ontario, which produces, profitably, tobacco crops. Dominion-provincial surveys have been under way in Ontario at least for many years.
The federal government already cooperates with the provincial authorities in all phases of conservation and, I believe, in the study of soil erosion and the relative ability of differing soils to absorb water, the study of the use of fall and winter crops, the effectiveness of fall versus spring plowing, and flood control to reduce excessive water run-off.
History tells us that great empires have fallen with the loss of their topsoil that has been carried out to sea. With topsoil and trees gone, and the land consequently deprived of moisture and vegetation, most of the area was surrendered to the wind, the sand and the desert. It is axiomatic, Mr. Speaker, that as this country grows in population the more intense and concentrated must be our conservation efforts, for if we falter we will find large areas of our richest and most productive soil becoming the poorest.
Erosion has become such a threat that it calls for 100 per cent co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal authorities. There must be no slackening of our efforts to prevent overgrazing, continuous plowing of windswept prairies, overcultivation of cash crops, so called, insufficient use of fertilizers, wastage of manure, intensive cultivation of hilly lands, plowing and cultivating up and down instead of across the slope, clear-cutting trees and woodlots, and so on.
A nation's soil is largely the basis of its greatness. Therefore we must protect our forest, cultivate and use our soil sanely, and maintain what is most essential, a balance with nature. What has been said about our forests, water and soil, Mr. Speaker, applies equally to our fisheries. The supply of fish is not inexhaustible, and now that we have

such efficient means of catching fish by trawlers and draggers we must be on our guard. Here again the fullest co-operation of the federal government and the people to see that the fishing grounds are not overfished is very essential. Do not let shortsighted exploitation bring tragedy to our fishing people and fishing villages where the only means of livelihood is fishing.
There has been worth-while co-operation between the federal and Nova Scotia governments in their efforts to protect the land of the province of Nova Scotia. In 1949 the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act was brought in, and I should remind hon. members here that in Nova Scotia conservation efforts were in effect over 320 years ago along the bay of Fundy shore. The purpose was to keep out the sea, which was submerging some of the richest land we had and washing it away.
Today there is too wide a spread between what the consumer pays for food, clothing and housing and the amount paid to the farmer and the primary producers on the soil. This is a danger point in our present civilization and the situation should be corrected if we are to maintain our soil resources and a prosperous permanent agriculture. An equitable relationship must be maintained between agriculture, labour and industry.
Conservation calls for co-operation of city and country, industry and agriculture. Canadians should move together on a united front with the common objective of conserving and building the natural resources of Canada, not exploiting them. Industry has a great stake in conservation. All wealth derives primarily from the earth and water. In our busy everyday life we do not stop and think enough about the fact that the cities and towns of Canada, the industries, the transportation systems, the accumulated wealth of the banks, insurance and mortgage companies, the foundations, universities, schools, hospitals and churches, have been built and are being supported with wealth from the earth and water of Canada. Too often we fail to remember that our homes, our incomes, our food and our clothing come for the most part from the soil and water of Canada.
We all have a personal interest and responsibility in conservation. Industry, finance, business, transportation, all have an enormous stake in conservation. The very future of Canadian industry depends on how well we conserve our natural resources. Many industries deal directly with the products of the soil, water and forests. These industries have an immediate awareness of conservation.
Conservation
Other industries, however, lacking this relationship, often do not realize that their success in the long run depends largely on the success of agriculture, which in turn depends upon the conservation of soil, water and forests. Wealth produced from the soil of western Canada has built the cities, industries and railroads of the west, and wealth from the western wheat crop has helped to build the industries of eastern Canada. This has not been done, however, without taking a toll of the fertility of the prairie soil. Industry, finance and transportation have an obligation to help restore that fertility and to conserve the soils of western Canada, the forests of British Columbia and eastern Canada, and to co-operate and aid in the conservation of Canada's natural resources. Industry, for its own good, not only has the opportunity but also the responsibility of playing a leading part in the conservation of our natural resources.
In 1949 the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), then minister of resources and development, introduced the Canada Forestry Act, which provides machinery for federal contributions and federal co-operation. A demonstration of this co-operation was made in New Brunswick, I think it was last year, when the federal government, the government of New Brunswick, as well as the companies owning the forests, got together and sprayed the menaced areas of forest in order to eliminate the budworm.
With the principle of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I agree heartily, but I do not believe that we are ready for a dominion-provincial conference at the moment. Much further study should be given to this allimportant subject. When such a conference is convened each province should have complete data and statistics marshalled for presentation, and at this time I believe that is not the case.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I did not
intend to speak on this question, Mr. Speaker, but since I have the experience of having been trained on a farm, where the rotation of crops was strictly carried out, I think I should say a few words. I want to say a word about the conservation of soil. I know that in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where I spent several years, one farmer might make a success of his farm where another farmer would fail. I know of one man in southern Saskatchewan who had only a quarter section, but he could raise more on that quarter section than his neighbour could on half a section The reason was that he spent his

Conservation
time on the farm, whereas the other man spent more of his time at games and on the highway.
I do not believe there is any lack of conservation of soil on the farms throughout Canada. There is a wide use of fertilizer and summer fallow. To prove this, one need only ask why it is we have had such good crops during the past three years. I think that is an outstanding argument to show that soil conservation is practised.
I congratulate the mover of this resolution on his preparation and the delivery of his speech. I congratulate also the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). If the C.C.F. party come into power at the next election, I think one of these hon. members would till the post of minister of resources and development while the other would fill the post of minister of agriculture. They seem to know a great deal about agriculture.
In my opinion this is not a matter for the government alone; the individual farmer must measure up to his responsibilities. I had this brought home to me during the last election campaign, when people said the government was doing too much spoon-feeding. I know that the government has to help, and it will help as it has in the past. I say, therefore, that with hard work and the proper use of fertilizer, as our farmers have done in the past, we will have abundant crops in the future.


John Angus MacLean: In rising to take part in this debate on the resolution, which reads-
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
-I am conscious of the fact that perhaps the average Canadian could hardly imagine a more drab or deadly subject about which to have a debate. Probably that is the opinion of many of the members in this house. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that these members will not have the same opinion after I am finished; they probably will; but there are some things I should like to say on this subject because I think it is one of great importance to us as a nation and to our civilization.
After all, if we fall into the habit of thinking that this is not an important subject, that it is rather dull, we may fall into error. Back through the ages men's imaginations have been stirred by dramatic happenings such as wars, floods, rumours of wars; and civilizations of the past have been stirred to great activity by ideas, by religious beliefs

and by new concepts of better ways of living. For the most part, however, men have paid very little attention to the insidious, remorseless factors which invariably destroy civilization when men fail to realize that they must work in harmony with nature rather than against the 'laws of nature. It is, therefore, not surprising perhaps that almost all, if not all, great civilizations of the past have vanished, not because they were destroyed by attack from without but rather because they decayed within. In some cases this decay was caused by moral degeneracy, but in many more it was brought about by economic collapse. Almost invariably a factor in that economic collapse was the fact that the soil, water and forest resources of the area were overtaxed to such an extent that erosion set in. Then, of course, almost automatically follows the drying up of the sources of supply of food and clothing for that civilization.
If we survey the ancient civilizations of North Africa, we realize that today little exists but desert where these civilizations once flourished, grew their food and produced their clothing. It is well to have a look at the factors which caused this situation. In North Africa this situation was brought about, in the first case, by overpopulation and by poor soil practices, as well as by the cutting down of the forests. When these things happened it was but a short time until the water table of. the area fell and the climate was affected. In a short time the area was unable any longer to support the civilization that once flourished upon it. This situation is neatly expressed, although perhaps incidentally, in a poem written by Percy Bysshe Shelley in the eighteenth century, when he wrote:
I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
This is a record of the end result of soil erosion. One may ask himself if we can afford not to be concerned with the matter of soil, water and forest conservation. Perhaps civilizations are like individual human beings; perhaps they will grow and flourish and then begin to decay and die. Perhaps it is inevitable that they should do so, that nothing can

be done about it, and that there is no use attempting to do anything. Therefore it may be that it does not matter much whether or not we go on looting nature's storehouse.
I am not one who agrees with the pessimistic view that civilizations bear within themselves the seeds of their own destruction, and that their decay and death is inevitable. There are some who hold that our civilization will pass away in a short time and be succeeded by one concentrated perhaps in the U.S.S.R., China or somewhere else. I believe we can learn from the past and avoid that sort of thing. In my view the simile between growth of civilizations and growth of human beings is not a valid one. I think it is not only wise but essential that we continue to control our soil erosion.
In the past, civilizations made the mistake of ignoring these forces of nature which were not spectacular, forces of nature which were dragging, insidious things. But these insidious forces destroyed civilizations just as completely as if they had been overthrown by some outside forces, some conquering armies.
I should like to quote briefly from page 246 of a book entitled "Road to Survival", where it says:
At the site called Timgad in Algeria, was one of the more famous centers of Roman power and culture. It was established by the Emperor Trajan about A.D. 100 and was laid out in a symmetrical pattern, equipped with a magnificent forum embellished with statuary and carved porticoes, with a public library, with 17 Roman baths adorned with beautiful mosaic floors, with a theater to seat some 2,500 . . . Timgad was a stately city supported by extensive grain fields in the valley plains and olive orchards on the hills.
After the weakening of the Roman power by the Vandal invasion in A.D. 430 the Berbers captured the city, and after the Arab invasion of the seventh century it was lost to knowledge for 1,200 years, buried by dust, the product of wind erosion.
There, Mr. Speaker, is an example of what happens if we ignore soil erosion. It may be said that the erosion of the soil is not an important thing, that perhaps there are still places in the world suitable for agriculture, that we can mine our own soil and then pass on to newer areas.
There was a time when that was so. When North America was first settled along the eastern boundaries and it became overpopulated in that area, and when the fertility of the soil began to be exhausted, it was simply a matter of moving westward to new and fertile areas which, in turn, could be exploited. But the tragic fact is that we, as a world, are running out of new and fertile areas to exploit. Our population is going up at a tremendous rate. In the last year the population of the world has increased by 20 million people. Since the house rose last Friday the
Conservation
net gain in the world's population has been equal to the total population of this city of Ottawa.
Our population is continuing to increase in numbers, but the land available for the population is not increasing. As a matter of fact, it is decreasing, owing to the fact that much of our land is becoming eroded and is no longer fit for agricultural uses.
We have seen what has happened in the past to people who ignored the problem of erosion. It should not be felt of course that even in the past there were not people who recognized the dangers arising from this problem. We see that twenty-three hundred years ago Plato, one of the great minds of his day, recognized this problem, and recorded these words:
There are mountains in Attica which can now keep nothing but bees, but which were clothed, not so very long ago, with fine trees producing timber suitable for roofing the largest buildings, and roofs hewn from this timber are still in existence. There were also many lofty cultivated trees, while the country produced boundless pasture for cattle.
The annual supply of rainfall was not lost, as it is at present, through being allowed to flow over a denuded surface to the sea, but was received by the country, in all its abundance-stored in impervious potter's earth-and so was able to discharge the drainage of the heights into the hollows in the form of springs and rivers with an abundant volume and wide territorial distribution. The shrines that survive to the present day on the sites of extinct water supplies are evidence for the correctness of my present hypothesis.
So you will see that this question of soil erosion is not a new one. I think we are agreed it is a problem that must be faced. All that remains is to decide how to attack it. What should be done? Some people believe that soil erosion and flood control present an engineering problem, and that it is something to be attacked at the mouths of rivers. They feel that we must build great levees and dams to control flood conditions. I do not believe that is so. It is my belief that flood control is tied up with the question of erosion, and that if you control one, you control the other. I believe one cannot separate the problem of flooding and erosion from that of conservation of water resources.
In that connection I should like to quote briefly from a book by Louis Bromfield entitled "Out of the Earth". In relation to the question of whether flood control is an engineering or agricultural problem he has this to say on page 256:
Today, in the vast Missouri river valley, there is a veritable warfare in progress over the fashion in which the flood and siltation problem shall be handled. The muddy Missouri offers the greatest problem of any watershed in the United States. For years it has carried billions of tons of silt along with its wildly destructive flood waters down the lower Missouri into the Mississippi and

Conservation
Into the gulf of Mexico. Since the Louisiana territory was acquired, it has been clearly evident that dams and levees far downstream were futile measures in the control of the flooding rivers of that area. In a century or more, billions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been spent in building dams which only silted up and downstream levees which only broke and had to be repaired over and over again. Thousands of lives have been lost and billions of dollars worth of property destroyed, all because the simple and perfectly visible evidence that floods are stopped upstream and not downstream has been persistently ignored by those who have had charge of the flood prevention of our watersheds.
In the Missouri watershed, the same simple, stupid pattern is being repeated to a large extent in the plans of the army engineers. Many of the projects advocate the construction of vast dams downstream which will eventually either break out or fill with silt, and the same projects call for the flooding of hundreds of thousands of acres of excellent agricultural land and the annihilation of whole prosperous communities. In the history of the world there have been few plans representing a more gigantic waste and futility. The object of flood and siltation control is not to build the biggest earthen dam in the world, not to construct the highest dam in the world, but to stop floods and siltation and conserve water, none of which is accomplished by the expensive and futile dams and levees built at the mouths of rivers.
That is a strong opinion by an expert on the matter who believes that flood control is an agricultural rather than an engineering problem.
If it is not an engineering problem and we cannot control it by engineering methods, what are the means by which we can control it? To begin with it is essential that every square foot of our land surface not used in agriculture should be forested. After all, forests are nature's natural protection of the soil. It is not only mechanical protection, it is protection by insulation and other means. In areas that are forested the rainfall does not run off, it soaks in and in that way there is automatic control of both water and soil. Forests have a considerable beneficial effect, especially in the spring, in areas such as ours where there is a considerable snowfall.
Any farmer can tell you that when a warm, thawing wind comes in the spring and the soil of his bare fields is frozen, the snow melts very rapidly and the water runs off. However, in the woodlot adjoining there is an insulating layer of leaves and forest mould on top of the ground which prevents the ground from freezing. Then the trees act as insulators and tend to keep the coolness in the snow for some period of time. They also create friction which slows down the velocity of the wind. The warm wind has much less effect in a wooded area than it has on the bare field.
In the woodlot the snow melts more gradually, and as it melts it soaks continually into the earth beneath. The result is
[Mr. MacLean.l
that even with a sudden change of weather in the spring, when there is a sudden mild spell with warm winds, there is no appreciable run-off from the forested areas. The run-off which causes flooding in the downstream areas is that which occurs from bare fields and areas under cultivation.
Even in areas under cultivation considerable success can be achieved by adopting certain practices which tend to conserve moisture. There are such obvious things as contour cultivation, keeping the humus content of the soil as high as possible, retaining the grass cover wherever possible and so on. However, as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has pointed out, economic pressure frequently causes farmers to indulge in agricultural practices which are not beneficial to soil conservation.
They are forced to mine their soil. In order to keep operating they must draw on what is in fact their working capital, the fertility of their land. When that happens erosion sets in and then you are faced with a vicious downward spiral. When that continues you soon reach a point of no return. When the fertility of a farm falls below a certain point it can never be brought back in an economic fashion.
There is considerable argument as to whose responsibility is this matter of soil and water and forest conservation. Some people say it is an engineering problem; others say it is something for the forestry branch, and others say it is an agricultural problem. I am inclined to agree with the last suggestion; nevertheless it is a problem which requires the co-operation of every branch of government at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal. Therefore I feel justified in supporting the resolution which has been presented.
I am not alone in thinking this is a question for administration chiefly by the Department of Agriculture, and in this connection I should like to quote briefly from a brief presented to this government by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture about a year ago. They say:
On previous occasions we have recommended a national soil conservation act providing for federal and provincial co-ordination and co-operation so that our land and water resources in all provinces may be developed and safeguarded for future generations. This is an urgent matter which in the long run would be of material benefit to all Canadians.
A program of conservation and development of our agricultural resources should include such things as large and small scale irrigation works in dry areas, surface and underdrainage in humid areas, diking and flood control and reforestation, and regrassing of lands submarginal for arable farming. Some of these things are now being done in a limited way under various federal and provincial laws in some provinces. We suggest

that the time is now ripe for these piecemeal programs to be co-ordinated under a broad program of federal and provincial co-ordination and cooperation. We therefore repeat our recommendation that no time should be lost in undertaking a nation-wide program of soil and water conservation.
The Agricultural Institute of Canada also has recommendations to make on this matter in a resolution dated November 7, 1952. The resolution states:
Be it resolved that the Agricultural Institute of Canada commends the government, for its intention to provide legislation to deal with the very important problem of the conservation of Canada's resources; that a strong brief on soil and water conservation be submitted to the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet to emphasize the necessity of continuing the Department of Agriculture as the administrative agency for any new conservation policy.
The institute concluded its brief in these words:
In conclusion may we reiterate the basic arguments of this submission. These are:
(1)	That efficient land use, which is dependent on soil and water conservation, is becoming of more urgent importance as the populations of Canada and of the world increase.
(2)	That there is need for a clearer and more comprehensive national policy of soil and water conservation than has been operated in Canada to date.
(3)	That conservation and agriculture offers a highly complex problem, involving the services of trained personnel in many fields of agricultural art and science.
(4)	That for all existing, or potential, agricultural land, soil and water conservation are inseparable.
(5)	That the farmer must be considered the most important factor in the ultimate effectiveness of any soil and water conservation policy.
(6)	That the farmer can be helped most by those who know his problems best.
(7)	That all experience shows the desirability of centering all administrative, planning and development responsibility in the field of soil and water conservation in departments of agriculture.
It seems reasonable to me that since this matter is primarily of concern to agriculturists the measures to control it should be initiated by the Department of Agriculture.
I have talked for a considerable time, Mr. Speaker, but chiefly about the conservation of the soil and of our forests, and I have said very little about water conservation. That has been intentional. I recognize that water conservation is becoming of great importance especially in highly industrialized areas, but I am not going to go into the problem now because it was dealt with in an excellent manner by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) last year.
There is another reason why I have not stressed the matter of water conservation. It is simply that if we manage to conserve our forest and our soil the problem of water conservation will automatically be solved, because it is part of the same problem. If we are to prevent erosion we must cause
Conservation
the rain to soak in where it falls and not run off. If that is done then we automatically solve the water problem as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from "Cry, the Beloved Country":
The grass is rich and matted. It holds the rain and the mist and they seep into the ground feeding the streams ... It is well-tended, and not too many cattle feed upon it; not too many fires burn it, laying bare the soil. Stand unshod upon it, for the ground is holy, being as it came from the Creator. Keep it, guard it, care for it, for it keeps men, guards men, cares for men. Destroy it and man is destroyed.


Mr. A. W. Siuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only for a short time in connection with this resolution moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge). I know that gentleman very well, and I believe he is one of our more broadminded citizens.
I say that for this reason. I understand, from information given me by a gentleman from his own province, that the hon. member for Kootenay West has in every way tried to protect his own holdings without assistance from anyone, and I have been given the impression that the timber rights he holds today are much more valuable than at the time he took them over, not only in dollars and cents but in the stands of timber. I believe he is to be commended on taking the stand he has taken at the present time, and in being prepared to support financial assistance to those who have exploited their land.
I wish to speak about my own province of New Brunswick, for I feel that in that province there has been too little regard paid to conservation. I do not wish to blame any one government, for this condition has prevailed for as long back as I can remember. Under neither government in the province of New Brunswick was any attempt ever made to stop operators exploiting and destroying the timber which is the heritage of all the people in that province. That exploitation has been carried on from time immemorial without any realization of the fact that we might some day wake up to find that our heritage had been lost.
I believe those who have exploited the timber lands and now ask for assistance are very selfish citizens. When the opportunity was given to cut the timber which belonged to the citizens of New Brunswick that timber was cut indiscriminately, without any thought to future generations; and these people who were allowed to carry on in that manner by the provincial government now come to the people of this country and ask them to play their part in restoring what has been deliberately destroyed. I think that is asking a little too much.

Conservation
Private owners in the provinces many of whom I know personally, have protected their holdings. They have cut very carefully, and today on land owned by private individuals you will find stands of timber that will compare with the stands that were there 30 or 40 years ago. That does not apply to the crown lands of the province of New Brunswick. I think we will all agree that control of crown lands comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore the conservation of these lands should have been of the utmost importance to our provincial legislature. In other words the provincial legislation has been the custodian of our heritage.
In so far as forests, rivers and soils are concerned, I would say that in my province they have been sadly neglected. To my knowledge no restrictions have ever been imposed with regard to the size of timber that could be cut. I have walked through timber lands in my own county-I refer to crown lands-where operators have been given the opportunity to go in and to cut the timber. When they were through, with the roads that had been bulldozed all over the area, it looked more like a spider's web than like a forest stand. In many cases that I know of a good percentage of the area where the cut was being taken was completely destroyed, in so far as any growth was concerned, for the next 50 years or more. That type of operation has been carried on for many years.
I would say that in my own county of Charlotte the lumber mills there would have been closed for lack of materials many years ago if we had continued with the same type of machinery for logging that we had 20 or 25 years ago. The only thing in the world that has saved the situation there is the use of trucks for hauling logs and timber to those mills. Those trucks are able to go 75, 100 or 125 miles and haul logs from areas which they could not have reached at all 25 or 30 years ago. But in the immediate vicinity I realize that it would be utterly impossible for them to get any timber with which to carry on. It could be seen years ago that the very thing I am describing would take place, but no effort was made to protect the forests which I believe should have been protected in order that the generations who follow after us might have the privilege of enjoying wealth from that same source.
I remember that two or three years ago I brought this matter before the Charlotte county board of trade. That is a board of trade that takes in the entire county. At this point I might say that I am not the owner of a single acre of woodland in the
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1
county of Charlotte or the province of New Brunswick; but I was greatly interested in and greatly worried about the destruction of our timber resources. At the Charlotte county board of trade meeting I mentioned the fact that this was a problem which should concern each and every citizen in the county. At that time I thought if we got information from a source that would be reliable it might convince us that some action should be taken immediately to try to remedy the situation. A Mr. Black, from Montreal-I do not remember his initials or his first name-[DOT]


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Robson Black.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Robson Black, who was greatly interested in forest lands in this country, who had travelled extensively in foreign lands making studies of their conservation measures, was kind enough to consent to come and to speak to the Charlotte county board of trade on this particular problem.
I well remember that in his remarks he described the conditions he found on a trip to Sweden and Norway. In those countries, even in forest lands that were owned privately, an inspector marked the trees that the owner could cut out. He could not cut the trees he thought should be cut. He cut the trees that were marked by an inspector for him. Mr. Black described the forests in those countries as being more valuable today than they were 50 years ago. The methods that have been adopted for the control of the cutting of that timber have given them a greater growth in 1950 than they had at the turn of the century. Those are the methods that should have been adopted in this country many years ago.
I am not one to say that it is ever too late to try to remedy a bad situation. However, before the taxpayers of this country are asked to dip down into their pockets and pay for the mistakes that have been made by selfish operators, I believe our own provincial legislatures should take the first step to see that the crown lands in our provinces are properly protected. Again I want to suggest that I am not blaming any one government. In the province of New Brunswick this sort of thing has been going on for as far back as I can remember. There has never been any plan. No restrictions of any kind have ever been imposed. The operators went on our crown lands; they cut, they exploited and they destroyed.
I can well remember walking on a piece of timber land just two or three years ago. It was one of the most beautiful growths of spruce I have seen anywhere in eastern Canada. The gentleman who was to cut that timber was a friend of mine. I wanted to see

him for a particular reason, and I went into his camp. They were just starting to cut. While I was there he passed me a letter, confidentially, which he had received from the gentleman who had bought the stumpage. In that letter he said, "Joe, I have paid a big price for this stumpage. I want you to take everything off this land even down to a piece that will make a two by four." Hence, one of the most beautiful stands of spruce that you could ever imagine was nothing but a desert in three months' time; and for the next 50 years on this piece of property nothing will grow that will be worth anything to anybody. That is the way the operators in the province of New Brunswick have been allowed to carry on.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was that on crown land or private land?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The piece I spoke of was private land, but I will give you another example on crown land.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the hon. gentleman not aware of the fact that there is a stumpage limit in New Brunswick with regard to cutting on crown land?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will not argue with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in that regard.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member does not need to.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I was on a piece of crown land just a year ago, in my own county. On that crown land I suggest that they did not haul a log more than 300 yards; that is, to twitch it. They just used bulldozers and bulldozed roads all through that crown land and, as I described a few moments ago, when they were through it looked more like a spider's web than like a forest stand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was talking about the stumpage limits.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There were no
restrictions as far as stumpage was concerned on that crown land or on any crown land I know of in Charlotte county. You could see where the bulldozers went through, where spruce trees of four, five and six inches were pushed aside by the bulldozer, and when they were through it was nothing but a fire hazard, with no chance of any worthwhile crop there for at least 50 years.


An hon. Member:: Was it burned?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No, it was not burned; it is still there.
Conservation


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You would have to get the trees out of the way in order to make a road.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I realize all that.
I have been on timber lands, I believe, as much as has the hon. member for Royal. When they bulldoze the trees they usually push them off to one side in order to get their trucks in. That is exactly what they were doing there. Along the sides of these roads were spruce trees which were four, five and six inches at the butt, pushed over. The roads were cut back and forth through these holdings. In fact I would say that in many cases 15 per cent of the area would be bulldozed roads when they were through.
I am very much in sympathy with the suggestions that have been brought before the house today by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I believe it is one thing we should all be greatly concerned about. I am going to suggest again that it is utterly hopeless to try to do anything in the province of New Brunswick until our provincial legislature- be it one government or the other, there has never been any difference that I know of in regard to crown lands-make up their minds that they are going to enforce some sort of restrictions that will give some protection to this heritage that we should like to have for our children and our children's children.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I would ask that all hon. members of this house give careful consideration to the principles which are involved in the motion. The basic principle only involves stating that in the opinion of the house the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
I cannot conceive of any member of the house not being in favour of any action that will bring about a joint meeting and understanding with a view to establishing a basic national policy with respect to the natural resources of Canada. I am particularly interested in that part of the motion which refers to the establishment of a national policy. It should be evident now that it is an immediate requisite for Canada that we should have a national policy on the development and conservation of our resources.
Under the constitution of Canada parliamentary jurisdiction is divided between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures, which in turn pass on some of their jurisdiction to their children, the municipalities. But basically jurisdiction is divided

Conservation
between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures. Under the constitution property and civil rights are allocated to the provincial legislatures. I am certain we will all agree to that. But there is one factor in the allocation of jurisdiction that I am also certain we cannot overlook, namely that the prosperity of Canada and the revenue of the federal government depends upon the development and conservation of our resources even though within provincial jurisdiction; and that their protection and conservation, even though within such provincial jurisdiction, necessitates action to see that potential development will be left for those who follow after us.
That being so, it is my contention that even though there is divided jurisdiction, even though the basic natural resources come within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, the government of Canada has a major interest in the development of industry and resources and the conservation of our natural resources. We have reached a period in the growth of Canada when, if there is one factor more outstanding than any other, it is that we should establish a national policy. To me it seems rather difficult for a province to ask the federal government for a joint conference to establish a national policy on the development of our resources and their conservation. It seems only logical that leadership should come from the federal government, or directly through an expression of opinion by the House of Commons.
This matter came very much to my attention only this year. Last spring it was my privilege and honour to be the leader of Her Majesty's most loyal opposition in the province of British Columbia, and at the spring session of the legislature a bill was introduced by the Social Credit government for the appointment of an advisory board on the Columbia river basin. On second reading of the bill it was emphasized by the premier of the province that this was being done at the request of the international joint commission. In view of the importance of the bill, as emphasized at that time, it went through very speedily; but though its importance was stressed when it was passed last March or April, no such board was appointed in British Columbia until the last two weeks.
Furthermore my understanding is that the board appointed to deal with the third largest river on the North American continent is composed of cabinet ministers and representatives of those interested in the development of power in British Columbia. It is most interesting to note that three of the

appointees under the bill passed last March or April are officials representing power interests, the British Columbia Power Commission, British Columbia Electric, and West Kootenay Light and Power. Apparently no consideration has been given to the fact that matters having to do with the third largest river on the North American continent go beyond the question of power. They involve the inundation of land, agriculture, forestry and highways.
This matter is of additional importance on a national basis because on many occasions in considering the development and conservation of resources in Canada we become involved in the split jurisdiction between federal and provincial governments, and also become involved with a foreign government, namely that of the United States. When you have a situation with respect to policy that involves the federal government, a provincial government and a government outside our borders, it seems only logical, and evident to me, that it is necessary for Canada to give a lead in calling a conference for the establishment of a national policy; especially if a foreign government is concerned.
Because of the introduction of the bill to which I have referred in the British Columbia legislature last March, I had to make a very intensive study of the matter of the Columbia river basin. In my studies I came across startling information. In the archives of the British Columbia government I found the record of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain in 1846 which outlined an agreement that the Columbia river was to be open for navigation from its headwaters to the sea in perpetuity. I have not been able to find that that treaty has ever been revoked. Yet for years the Columbia river on the United States side of the border has been dammed, with the result that we have lost the right contained in article II of the treaty of 1846 to have the right of navigation on the Columbia river from British Columbia open to the sea.
To the best of my knowledge this matter was at no time ever raised or considered when Canada agreed to the damming of the Columbia river. Let that situation be as it may. It is now evident that for some considerable time the question of damming the Columbia river within the borders of British Columbia, at the request of the United States, has been under consideration. This would entail the flooding of thousands of acres of land. If my information is correct it would entail the flooding of between 16 and 20 miles of the Big Bend highway, which has

been declared a section of the trans-Canada highway. This, in turn, would mean the rerouting of the trans-Canada highway.
I raise this as a particular instance, both from the viewpoint of existing treaties- some of which have been in effect for over a hundred years, and to which there has not been adherence-and from the viewpoint that one cannot draw any clear line of demarcation between provincial and federal responsibility. In view of this fact there is a necessity, first of all, that there shall be a policy established in the national interest of Canada on such matters as rivers, highways, fisheries and forests. In addition we should have a policy, provincially and nationally, which would enable us to work out arrangements with foreign powers on our borders so that the interests of Canadian citizens and Canadian resources are fully protected.
I make this statement also in view of the action taken by the British Columbia government within the past ten days to establish an advisory committee, under a statute of the British Columbia legislature, on this most important issue of the Columbia river basin. This action has been taken on a political and power basis and not on the basis of representation of engineering, agriculture, forestry and water power interests. I have no hesitation whatever, Mr. Speaker, in saying that although this question may appear to be of a strictly provincial nature, basically it is not. The federal government has to give the provinces a lead, and at this time the government should give a definite lead on something we have never had before, something which we need now as we have never needed it before, a national policy for the development and conservation of our resources.
It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance of this matter and the principles involved, because every one of us here, irrespective -of our political affiliation, is interested in Canada, in the development of our resources and the protection of our rights, hon. members will consider this motion from the broad viewpoint of Canadian citizens, from the broad viewpoint of members of parliament for Canada and not on a political basis. If hon. members do that they will then support what is, in my estimation, one of the most important resolutions on the order paper, which expresses the opinion that we should have a conference on these matters. Who could disagree with the provinces and the federal government getting together for the purpose of establishing the basic principles of a national policy in the matter of forests, water conservation and land use in our dominion?
Conservation


Douglas Scott Harkness: I
support the general principles and purpose of this resolution, Mr. Speaker. From the long-term point of view of the welfare of the people of Canada I think there is nothing more important than the conservation of our soil and water. I must, however, disagree with the minister when he suggests this is not the opportune time to get started on a national plan in order to make sure these resources are properly conserved.
Coming from western Canada, which is an area that is particularly vulnerable to erosion, I am seized with the importance of more being done as soon as possible in the matter of soil and water conservation. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) cited what had happened to what were once extremely populous and fertile regions in the old world. He cited particularly North Africa, but history is full of instances where areas which once supported extremely large populations in a prosperous state are now deserts. A good part of Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor-in fact a large portion of the interior of Asia-which is now desert or semi-arid land at one time nurtured large populations of aggressive people. Many of those areas are now almost completely depopulated, or else they carry small populations living under difficult conditions.
The plains area of western Canada is particularly vulnerable to the same fate. Unless proper measures of conservation are taken, that area could be converted easily into a desert. Some years ago we passed legislation to set up the eastern Rockies forest conservation board which, in conjunction with Alberta, sought to maintain the forest cover on the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains. This board has done extremely good work. Most of the work to date has consisted of cutting access roads into these areas to make it possible to fight fires successfully. Before this project was started fires destroyed a large part of the forest cover in these areas. If one drives along some of the roads that have been built one can see hundreds of square miles of blackened stumps and a small amount of new growth, which convinces one of the necessity for forest fire protection and the work done by the eastern Rockies forest conservation board.
I have a copy of a report from that board which shows that out of a total of 5-5 million acres of land under their control during 195253, only 8-5 acres were burned over; that is a remarkable achievement. I believe the 8-5 acres were burned over by about twelve odd fires. I do not see the exact number of fires here, but I believe there were some twelve fires started which were confined to this extremely small area. Had it not been

Conservation
for the access roads and the fire-fighting service maintained there, I am sure we would have lost many thousands of acres of valuable forest land.
This is only the start. The western rivers which flow through the prairies rise on the eastern slopes of the Rockies. They have been fed in the first place by glaciers in those mountains. It is an unfortunate fact that in the last 60 years these glaciers have been gradually retreating. In other words, within the memory of some people still living in those areas the glaciers have retreated as much as a mile or a mile and a half. They are rapidly disappearing; and with the disappearance of the glaciers there is also disappearing the source of all our prairie rivers. When these glaciers have either disappeared completely or become much smaller than they are today, it will mean that, except in the spring or after heavy rains, in many cases the rivers will be either dry or almost so.
The basic problem on the prairies is not that of building irrigation dams, although we realize that they are necessary. It is a problem of ensuring that there is sufficient water in the rivers to fill the irrigation dams and thus provide water for purposes of irrigating the land. This can be assured only by extending the forest cover.
In their natural state the forests extended out from the mountains for some considerable distance; indeed, they reached almost a line north and south of Calgary at the present time. There were of course some fingers of prairie land running considerably farther west than Calgary, just as there were fingers of forest land running farther east. However, I have indicated the general line. Going to a point 50 or 60 miles north of Calgary one reaches a parkland area, at which point the forest cover extends farther to the east, and where spaces with clumps of poplar and willow extended out right across the country.
With settlement, however, the forest cover has been pushed back to a considerable extent. The conservation board having control of the eastern slope of the Rockies deals with areas which extend only a short distance east of the Rocky mountains. In other words the activities of the board are pretty well confined to the mountains and the immediate slopes thereof. In my view the scope of its activities should be extended to the east. In other words there should be an effort to stop the constant cutting down of the forests and the resulting reduction in the forest cover on the eastern slopes of the mountains.
Much of the land from which the forest has been cut and which has been brought under cultivation is not of good quality,

and I do not think the crops grown on it have justified its conversion to agricultural uses. It seems to me that in any agreement between Alberta and the federal government the scope of the board should be extended to the east, and some of the land now in agricultural production should be returned to a forest state. The board should put a stop to the constant westward movement of the process of establishing farm lands, with the consequent destruction of the forests.
Only by extending the forest cover will we be able to compensate for the retreat of the glaciers. We know that the rivers are fed by the melting glaciers, but they are also fed by the moisture which has soaked into the forests and which gradually runs out as the snow melts in the spring. This keeps the rivers in a fair state of flow.
As an example, I know that only 60 or 65 years ago there were river boats running along the North Saskatchewan river from Edmonton to points east. In the last several years during the summer months one could walk across the river at almost any point. This gives some indication of the extent to which the flow has been reduced. There can be no doubt that if this process continues, the building of large irrigation and power dams will, to a large extent, be a waste of money.
I am in favour of building as many as possible of these dams because they serve to catch the spring run-off, which at the present time goes down to the sea and is lost. In the building of a dam an artificial lake is created, thus raising the water table in the land for a considerable distance around the lake. This ensures the growth of crops in dry years when, otherwise, nothing would grow.
This matter of taking definite steps to prevent further denuding of the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains, to restore the forests by replanting, and to take out of agriculture some lands now being used for that purpose, does not brook delay. If our western economy is to continue in a healthy state, and to be such as to support an increased population, then the sooner definite conservation measures are taken the better it will be not only for those of us on the prairies but also for all the people in Canada and, indeed, the whole world.
Reforestation, so far as I know, is the only method available to conserve the moisture required to maintain the flow of the streams. In connection with reforestation one must keep in mind the matter of planting trees as windbreaks on the farms. Much of this has been done on farmsteads and around farmers' fields.

All these developments require publicity. More people must be told what they can do and how they can do it. Definite examples should be given to them of the value they may derive as individuals. I am convinced that the only way to bring this about is by a proper program of publicity. If this is done we will have not only a proper conservation scheme, but I believe each individual will be prepared to carry out conservation measures.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, whatever happens to this resolution, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) deserves the gratitude of each of us for having brought it to the attention of the house. I personally have high regard for the hon. member, and it is with considerable regret that I find I am not in a position to support the resolution he sponsors today. In the light of this fact I feel I should place on record my reasons for not being able to do so.
The resolution is in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
We find, upon analysing the resolution, that it contains two specific ideas, the first being that there should be a national policy of conservation, and the second that the federal government should take the initiative in bringing it about. Underlying these two specific ideas is the general thought of the importance of conservation of our resources, and the urgent need of a practical program to carry this out.
With that general idea there can be no disagreement. Of all the provinces of Canada I suppose none has suffered as much as the one I represent from the lack of a good conservation program.
In that province no riding has suffered more than the riding I represent. Early settlers on the coast of my riding knew nothing about conservation. They needed wood for fuel, for the building of flakes and boats and for a number of other uses, and it was natural that they should cut down the trees at hand. The result is that the whole southern coast of the province has been almost completely denuded of soil. The crown lands starting three miles in from the coast, which were reserved for the use of the fishing population, have been practically depleted. Only recently our minister of natural resources, Hon. F. W. Rowe, expressed concern lest the forest resources of our province be depleted much faster than they are being replaced.
Conservation
I have no quarrel with the general idea that there is a need for conservation. The only question that arises in my mind is the best method by which it can be carried out. This resolution proposes a national policy. Earlier today the minister pointed out that the chief objection to the resolution was the fact that it proposed a violation of provincial responsibility. Under our constitution the provinces have been made the trustees of our natural resources, and they are the governments which enter into agreements with private enterprise for the leasing of resources.
The point that concerns me most is that this is another instance of pushing responsibility over on the federal government. Since I came to this parliament in 1949 I have been amazed at the constant pressure from all quarters to evade responsibility and shift it to the federal government. I think the time has come when the federal government must resist that kind of pressure. If it does not the final result inevitably will be that it will find itself responsible for everybody and everything and no one else will be responsible for anything at all. But that is a trend I deplore, and it is one that should be resisted at all costs.
This resolution proposes that the federal government go out and initiate a conference with the object of taking over further responsibility which belongs rightly to the provinces. That is a very unhealthy sign in our national life. The question that comes to my mind when I consider this resolution is, first, whether a national policy is possible.
I think most of us have a great deal of difficulty in appraising the vastness of this country. We are apt to forget that Canada constitutes the third largest land mass in the world, that only China and Russia have a greater land area than Canada. With a country so vast, stretching from the Atlantic 4,000 miles to the Pacific, from subtropical areas to the north pole; with a country possessing such a variety of topography and geography, I have great doubt whether a national policy is possible.
If a national policy were possible, then what about the cost of carrying it out? I was interested in the argument put forth by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who contended that the provinces were unable to provide the money required to conserve their natural resources. In his opinion that was the main reason the federal government should undertake this responsibility. If the federal government undertakes this responsibility it must find the money. It must obtain that money either by cutting down expenditures to which we are committed already or by taking more money out

Conservation
of the pockets of the taxpayers. If money is going to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers I think it would be better and fairer that the provinces should do that rather than the federal government here in Ottawa.
The next question that comes to my mind is that even if it were physically and financially possible, is it advisable? I do not see how we can initiate a conference with the idea of taking over provincial responsibility without implying that there is criticism of the way in which the provinces are discharging that responsibility. We must say to them, "We are not satisfied with the way you are doing the job," or we must be presumptuous and say to them, "We can do this job better than you are doing." I do not think that is a very good position for the federal government to take in its relations with the provincial governments.
Apart from this tendency to push everything onto the federal government, another thing that has concerned me since I have been sitting in this house is the idea that all we have to do is to pass a law in Ottawa, to issue a decree and, presto, something is going to happen and automatically everything will be taken care of. The conservation of our resources is largely in the hands of the people, the people who live in the provinces and the municipalities. Whatever decree we may make and whatever line of policy we may lay down, the ultimate results rest with these people. Whether the fruit is going to be good or bad depends almost entirely on the people themselves, and that in turn depends on how well they are educated as to the need for conservation and how well they recognize that conservation is in their own interests.
I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) about farmers not fertilizing their soil properly and thus destroying its fertility. Surely the answer to that is to educate the farmer so he realizes that it is in his own interests to take a more enlightened approach to the farming of his land. The business of educating the people can best be done on the provincial and municipal level. I have here a little pamphlet containing the annual report for 1953 of the Newfoundland forests protection association, and it tells a very thrilling story about a program carried out by the provincial government in co-operation with the papermaking companies and the general public in educating people as to the heritage that has been handed down to them and as to their own responsibility in preserving that heritage for the generations yet to come.
As regards the provincial governments, I do not think we should imply that they are

not doing a good job in this regard. We have a very good provincial department of natural resources in Newfoundland, and we have a very progressive minister at its head. We are now beginning to see the fruits of an enlightened policy, and we can see developments which in due course will assist a great deal in preserving our resources. We cannot repair all the mistakes of the past, for in some cases the damage has been beyond repair; but starting from where we are I believe the provincial government is doing an excellent job.
That raises the question whether the national policy proposed by this resolution is preferable to the one we now have which, as the minister outlined it, is one of co-operation with and assistance to the province and special assistance in special cases, depending on the merits of the case.
It is my belief that, having regard to the vastness of our country, to the variety of conditions with which we have to contend, and the need of co-operation from the people themselves, that sort of program is far better than the one proposed in the resolution whereby we would lay down a national policy without knowing anything about costs or special local conditions, and with none of the local knowledge enjoyed by provincial and municipal authorities.
I commend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for focusing our attention on this problem at the present time, but for the reasons I have stated I regret that I am unable to support the resolution.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague deserves credit for bringing this resolution before the house. He made an excellent speech. May I also congratulate many of the other speakers who have taken part in this debate. There were one or two things said with which I did not agree. My hon. friend from Queens (Mr. MacLean), who certainly did a lot of work on his speech, gave us a quotation which was rather peculiar, and I wrote it down. "Civilization", he said "contains within it the seeds of its own destruction." May I say, sir, that is not the way I understand that quotation to read. Perhaps my hon. friend might like to look it up. He might gain some enlightenment.
Again, I did not agree with my hon. friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). He appeared to think that the matter of conservation depends largely on the individual, and he referred particularly to soil conservation on the farm. He said this was a matter for individual farmers to look after. I will admit that the individual

farmer can do something about it if his farm is not already run down, as are so many farms in Ontario and elsewhere, but it seems to me that where the profit motive is concerned people are not too careful of any of the natural resources upon which they are able to lay their hands, particularly when these natural resources belong to the public domain. I think governments have an interest in this as well as individuals.
I shall flatter my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) who has just spoken, or perhaps flatter myself by saying that I do not agree with anything he said at all except when he said he had the greatest esteem for the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). However, despite this esteem he finds himself in a position in which he cannot vote with him.
I wonder if the position of my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo has anything to do with the minister's statement to the effect that the government for the time being was opposing this resolution. His argument seemed to me to be nothing more or less than the belief that we should have ten little countries instead of one big one, and with that I do not agree. I also do not agree with his position that provinces which are unfortunate, like his own, in the matter of having more rock in their area than good soil, should not be assisted by the rest of Canada, and that the government should not come to the assistance of that or any other province in certain circumstances, for instance in regard to social services.
It is not my understanding that my friend's province has been starved in that particular respect. Surely if this Canada means anything to us it means a united nation with ten provinces whose jurisdiction is of course defined; but we should not be too sticky about that jurisdiction. I think surely to some extent we should be expected and willing to bear one another's burdens whether it is in matters economic or in the field of social services or anything else. As far as I am concerned I would be prepared to contribute my share, and I do not see why provinces which are wealthy and strong should not be able to help provinces which are weaker and poorer.
In this matter of conservation of natural resources I thought as I listened to some of the speeches, what an inconsistent people we are, not as Canadians but rather as human beings. I am sure the thoughts of many members of this house have been concerned with how in the world we are going to get rid of great surpluses of agricultural products. Now we have this bill introduced with the idea of getting people to come to
Conservation
see how we can conserve our resources, particularly the soil, by which we can grow greater surpluses of agricultural products and all the rest.
I do not want to be misunderstood on this particular point, because I am certainly all in favour of conservation. I am all in favour of production. I am in favour, if you like, of overproduction-and I will go on record to that effect-so we may do some of the things I have just suggested to my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) that we should do; that is, that we would be able to help those who are not so well able to help themselves as are we.
We must preserve our resources. I have often been struck by the haste with which we try to turn our resources into immediate money gain, and that at the expense of posterity. I suppose it is true in the matter of timber, particularly. It has been true certainly in the matter of soil and the other things that have been mentioned here today. I think our first consideration should be not our immediate gain but rather to see to it that the people who occupy these lands enjoy the use-and I say "use" advisedly-of the things that properly belong to them or, in my opinion, should belong to them.
Unfortunately a good many of our natural resources which I think should be in the public domain have already been exploited and destroyed by those who were more interested in their own gain-perhaps legitimately enough-than they were in the matter of public gain. I am not suggesting that my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is one of those people but he certainly talked like one, or gave me that idea.
I might point out also that these supplies are not inexhaustible. The day is coming, and coming fast, when we shall discover that fact. For instance, we have a water table which has been going down gradually but appreciably. The matter of our timber has been, up until some years ago, I would say a national disgrace or, as my friend the last speaker said, a provincial disgrace; he prefers that expression. I am pleased that his province is taking steps, as is my own, to remedy that situation.
We out in the central prairies are not as abundantly blessed with natural resources as are many of the other districts represented by my hon. friends. Our first great asset, of course, is the top six inches of soil; I use the expression "six inches" not as an accurate measurement. I remember travelling on the train with an old gentleman from the province of my hon. friend who has just preceded me. We were going out through the Portage

Conservation
plains, and we came to a place where there was a dug-out and there were six or eight or nine feet of black soil there. My old friend said to me, "You know, I come from Newfoundland. I am going out to see my son at Flin Flon, and I just cannot get over this vast expanse of beautiful black soil." He said, "You know, in my backyard we like to play horseshoes, but when I take out the axe to pound in the peg, I cannot get the peg to stick in the ground because it quickly strikes rock." It is the top six inches of the soil that is important. Easterners are amazed at its fertility and, I am afraid with some justification, they are often amazed at how much we can abuse our land and how it will come back and reward us for that abuse rather than punish us for it.
It is fortunate that we have now discovered farming methods by which some of that soil or that humus at least can be preserved. In the old days we simply blew the straw into great heaps on those wheat fields, stuck a match to it when the first snow came and there was nothing left but a pile of ashes. With the new methods of farming both the rubbish and the stubble are left on top of the soil, through the fact that it is chopped up by the combines; and a method of tillage is used upon it which works it gradually into the soil. The fact is that that rubbish- which looks terrible to the eastern farmer who is accustomed to nice, black, neatly-plowed fields-preserves the soil from drifting; and drifting is one of our great enemies. It makes a mulch which is conducive to the holding of moisture when and if that moisture arrives. It is a much better system. There has been a great improvement in that respect.
Another resource in which we are interested is that of our trees. I suppose many hon. members think of Saskatoon as being fairly far north in the province of Saskatchewan, but it is actually in the south; and we think of those vast timber lands which are to the north as one of our great resources. The old system, of course, was for the private enterpriser to get a limit, go in and cut, slash, burn and take from the country what he could get; and for the rest of the people there were left the stumps. Some condition like that has been described by my friend the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) here this afternoon.
In the discussion between the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) there was some question as to whether this exploitation was on public or private land. I do not know whether you remember, Mr. Speaker, the case back in

1945 or 1946 which was brought to the attention of the house by the then hon. member for Dauphin who, I am glad to say, is again the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny). He brought to the attention of the government the example of a timber limit being let even in Riding Mountain national park in the province of Manitoba. When we asked the government when this lease would run out they said, "It is a perpetual lease as long as there is anything on it worth cutting". So they got down finally to cutting fence posts three and four inches thick.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are getting uneasy and I know I am getting hungry. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
.	AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, before the
dinner recess I was talking about what we conceive to be a national scandal, in that private interests were allowed to cut timber in Riding Mountain national park, Manitoba. I think I had reached the point of saying that when we inquired about the matter from the government we were informed it was a perpetual lease as long as there was any timber there that was worth cutting. However, I am glad to say that situation was remedied. Of course it is true that the company did not leave anything for the people of the nation except stumps, not a very profitable situation.
That brings me to the matter of trees and lumbering in Saskatchewan. A great many people do not realize to what extent the northern part of Saskatchewan is wooded. When the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was speaking this afternoon he mentioned the steps his province had taken to preserve their timber, and I was very glad to hear that. I should like to say that we have also done something like that in Saskatchewan. I do not want to be political about this, but I think it is a matter of record that by 1944 all the decent timber so far as saw-wood was concerned had been taken out of the bush in the northern part of Saskatchewan. A good many people made their fortunes out of it, and I think perhaps some of them were put in the other place as a reward. However, let that go.
I might point out that the need to take care of timber is much greater, of course, in proportion to the dryness of the particular province. In Saskatchewan we have not the precipitation that the people of the east

have. However, a definite plan has been put into effect in the province in co-operation with the dominion government, I am pleased to be able to say; and although the supply of merchantable sawlogs has been exhausted and has not had time to grow again since 1944, we have a great potential there in pulp and softwood. I am glad to say that negotiations have been under way, and I think an arrangement has already been made for the use of some of it. If these negotiations prove to be successful we expect to be able to cut 20,000 cords of pulpwood each year for the next ten years without in any way damaging the timber crop.
When I say "crop" I use that word advisedly, because it has been discovered that timber can be harvested as a crop. With proper marking and selection of areas there is no reason in the world why the timber should get any less with cutting. In fact the supply will become greater if the cutting is judiciously done and proper precautions are taken with respect to fire prevention and so on. Surveys and research in timber work have been done in northern Saskatchewan, and in that regard I must pay tribute to the Canadian Forestry Association and the provincial and dominion governments, which have rendered assistance.
Another thing that has helped is that Saskatchewan Government Airways, by going into that northern country, have made large tracts accessible which were inaccessible before. Taken in conjunction with the fire prevention precautions, that sort of forest management can and will guarantee perpetual yield in that province. Another important aspect of having trees in the northern part of the province is that it helps the tourist industry. We have so few industries in Saskatchewan that we like to preserve those we do have. My city of Saskatoon is certainly interested in keeping inviolate, if I may use that word, these northern playgrounds.
I see the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) is in his seat. I should thank him for the kind words he had to say today about the members of this party, particularly with reference to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). May I say that I agree with the hon. member for Fort William when he said that my colleague would make an excellent minister of agriculture. I hope the day may come in the not too distant future-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Move right across.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -when he will have the
opportunity to prove that both the hon. member for Fort William and I are correct in that estimate.
Conservation
I now come to water. I think eastern members have some difficulty in realizing the importance of water so far as the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned, and to a lesser extent in Manitoba. On Sundays and holidays we go to the nearest water, which sometimes is unfortunately far distant. People come in crowds to sit by the river not far from my house and watch the muddy water run by. I fancy they are thinking that water should be used for something instead of simply letting it run down to swell Hudson bay and the Atlantic ocean, where there is plenty of water already.
That brings me, naturally, to the Saskatchewan dam which the hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned. I was interested in the little bit of minister-baiting indulged in by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I have no intention of indulging in that tonight, because I am well aware that I would probably get the worst of it. The hon. member for Assiniboia has more agility and, may I say, more practice in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends upon which minister you bait.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do know that the people of Saskatchewan were bitterly disappointed with respect to the dam. I do know that, even after they were categorically told by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on one or two occasions that at the estimated expense that would be involved in constructing the dam they simply would not be getting it, our agile Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) still made speeches about it previous to the election. He had different schemes and ways as to how he thought it might be managed. I fancy those were in existence at least until after August 10, but I am not so sure that the people of Saskatchewan took them all in the spirit in which they were offered.
I will not trouble the house with long quotations, but I have a rather nasty little one from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 29, 1953. I wish to read the final paragraph of a long editorial-I do not know which editor it was at that time-in which the editor had this to say:
Mr. Gardiner cannot escape announcing a federal policy for the South Saskatchewan river by raising additional questions. The reception which the people of Saskatchewan gave to the report of the royal commission should have been enough to tip him off that the people of this province are in earnest about getting some irrigation development started long enough before the next drought to do some good. Moreover, the Saskatchewan river development association is not leading a delegation to Ottawa this week to be confronted with a new set of conundrums designed to get Mr. Gardiner or the federal government off the hook. We want to know what the federal government proposes to do about the Outlook dam. And we are not inclined to accept more questions as a substitute for action.

Conservation
I think the people of the province of Saskatchewan, particularly in the dry area, are still largely in the mood indicated by that editorial. The water, as I said, is now going to waste and could be used for a useful purpose.
Water preservation, of course, has a good deal to do in these dry areas with something that is even more important, human resources. I am now referring of course to the retention of population in these areas. I think it is a well known fact even in the east that the farms of Saskatchewan are getting larger and larger. As the farms get larger and larger the machinery gets bigger and bigger, and as the machinery gets bigger and bigger the farms get bigger. The man who has a $6,000 combine thinks that he might as well have another quarter or half section. Then he has to have a larger combine, and away we go.
I say in all seriousness that the greatest problem in Saskatchewan today, and perhaps to a lesser extent in Manitoba and Alberta, is that of farm population or, if you like, the problem of population of any sort. As the farms get larger and larger the farm population becomes less and less. Then, it is rather rugged to live out in the centre of a stubble field all winter, so people who are reasonably well off decide to give their children the advantage of an education and the social advantages to be found in the smaller towns. They buy a house in town and then proceed to live there. As a matter of fact, in a good many cases their families live there the year round. From the standpoint of efficiency, an old man and a boy using the new machinery take off more wheat from a farm than 25 men did when I was a boy.
One of the problems of the new area is the tremendous mileage of roads to be built by a very small number of people. The same thing is true with regard to our educational and other services. I believe that is probably the chief trouble in the middle west today. The problem can only be solved, as I see it, by bringing in industry of some kind. I am driven to say, and I am proud to say, that our own government-I am not speaking from a political point of view at the moment-has seen to it that we have a start in industry in Saskatchewan. Capital is coming into the province as oil is being discovered, and through the uranium in the north. I need not go into the long list of those things. The fact is that there is a slight tendency, in spite of the mechanization of the farms, toward a desirable increase in population. We hope that will continue.
You might wonder how I am going to connect all that with the water resources. If one looks at the country around Lethbridge I think one can see what irrigation can do. There is no doubt in the world that if a part of Saskatchewan were irrigated, we would

have a larger population. The farms would be smaller. People would go in for raising sugar beets, growing vegetables and small fruits. There would be a tremendous increase in the cattle feeding industry and in dairy products, and that would be all to the good. It would give us more taxpayers. It would give us more population. It would give us more of the social amenities, and it would produce a condition the opposite of the rather barren one which I have just described.
Now, sir, I think that is about all I want to say on the matter. When I addressed the house before, Mr. Speaker, you personally were not in the chair.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not often have the opportunity of speaking French since, where I live, we all speak English. However you will not be surprised if I use your mother tongue to congratulate you on the honour bestowed upon you when you became Speaker of this house. I would like to extend to you and to the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Robinson) my best wishes for all possible success in the discharge of the important duties you have been called upon to perform. I say this with all the sincerity at my command.
(Text):


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I listened to this interesting debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to congratulate those who have taken part in it. In the past we have heard a good many debates on this subject, and they have all been very interesting. Conservation is a very old subject. In his excellent speech this afternoon the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) said that we in the maritime provinces have been carrying on conservation for the past 300 years. I imagine that is as long as any province in Canada has been doing it.
I did not intend to have anything to say in this debate until I listened to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) this afternoon. I must say that I agreed with many of the statements he made. The forest lands in New Brunswick are very important, as everyone knows, to the economy of our province. Lumbering is the chief industry of our province, with the exception of fishing.
I agree with the hon. member when he says that in the past there has been notorious misuse of our forested areas in the province. However, I believe the same thing can be said of every province in Canada. We had what were known as lumber barons in New Brunswick years ago. I have heard also of the lumber barons of the Ottawa valley and the lumber barons of the other parts of Canada, including Quebec.

We all know that in the early days the people were robbed by these so-called lumber barons. I think I can say, sir, that for the past 30 years at least, and probably longer, the administration of our forest lands in New Brunswick has been conducted as capably as in any other province. We have good regulations and we have a good act. I am satisfied that we have had conscientious men administering that act. As a matter of fact the hon. member stated that he thought, so far as political parties were concerned, they were both guilty. As I said, they were guilty years ago, but for the past 18 years or more the administration of our forest lands in New Brunswick was under a Liberal administration. I knew the different ministers very well. I knew Hon. Mr. Gill, who was the minister of lands and mines in the recent McNair government. I know he was a hard-working and conscientious minister.
I know, too, that the officials who worked under Mr. Gill over a long period of years in administering the act were capable people. The present minister of lands and mines in New Brunswick, Hon. Mr. Buchanan, who comes from Charlotte county, my hon. friend's constituency, is an outstanding young man. He won the Military Cross on two occasions in the last war, and is recognized by all who know him as an able administrator. I see in the house here the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Boucher), who was a member of the McNair government for a number of years. I am certain that the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska does not agree with the hon. member for Charlotte.
So far as crown lands are concerned, many of them have been under lease to the pulp and paper companies. These companies built large pulp mills at Bathurst, Dalhousie, Campbellton, Edmundston and other places in New Brunswick. These mills were built with the idea the industry would go on for many years. It is my understanding that, as a rule, the operators of these mills cut just the normal annual growth of timber on the land which they have under their control. It would seem to me, and I believe to most of the members here, foolish for these people to destroy the timber lands upon which the operations of their mills are based.
So far as private lands in New Brunswick are concerned, practically every farmer in the province has what is known as a small woodlot. Those woodlots are to him just the same as money in the bank. The farmer does not allow his woodlot to be cut indiscriminately. Each year most of these farmers go out and cut a certain amount of lumber for themselves. As I say, it is a constant source of revenue.
Conservation
I will agree with the hon. member for Charlotte that there are certain lumber operators who buy up small holdings 'of private lands and who do cut indiscriminately. They strip the land of all the timber on it. They leave the refuse on the ground so that it becomes a fire hazard, and in this way they injure lumbering operations to that extent.
I should like to refer this evening to the indiscriminate cutting of pulpwood that we had a few years ago. Hon. members will recall that the price of pulp went away up. Large sums were paid for pulpwood; the result was that everyone in the community got into the pulp business. Tens of thousands of cords of pulpwood were cut in my own province. For about a year the price remained high. Cutting continued, however, and as we all know the bottom fell out of the market, with the result that many thousands of cords of pulpwood were left in the woods and could not be sold. This was a definite loss to the people who had cut it, as well as a great loss to the future of the province.
The pulpwood just rotted in the woods. If it had been left standing it would have grown, into logs, and in the future would have been a great revenue producer for the province. Frankly I believe that if we had had some federal-provincial organization these pulp operators would not have been permitted to encourage people to cut so much pulpwood. This would have been a good thing for the industry, and would have helped conserve our lumber resources.
I disagree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and some others who said that the conservation of our forests is definitely a provincial matter. My own province of New Brunswick has very limited revenues, and I know it would be impossible for that province at the present time to look after the conservation of our forests.
This afternoon the minister mentioned that we had had in New Brunswick an infestation of budworms, and that thousands of acres of spruce forests had been affected, with the result that the province had appealed to the federal government. Following this action the federal and provincial governments, as well as the private operators about whom I have spoken, combined to fight the budworm. Two or three years ago a fleet of aircraft was sent down to the province, and has operated each year since that time. I have been pleased to learn that the budworm infestation is now fairly well under control.
If this had been left entirely to the province of New Brunswick I doubt very much if it would have been able to combat this
83S

Conservation
very dangerous tree disease. As a matter of fact it would not have been a provincial problem at all, because we know that the province of Quebec and the state of Maine adjoin New Brunswick. We know, too, that the budworm does not recognize either provincial or international boundaries. The federal government therefore was wise in deciding that this was a matter which concerned it just as much as it did the province. I should like to express my appreciation for the assistance the federal authorities have given to New Brunswick in this connection.
May I take this opportunity to say that I agree with those hon. members who have said that we in Canada are probably the most wasteful people in the world. I remember that upon returning from overseas after the first world war this fact was strongly impressed upon my mind. I went through forests in France and Germany, and I noted that nothing was wasted. The area beneath the trees was almost as clean as the carpet on the floor in this chamber; no twig or branch was left to go to waste.
I learned, too, as was pointed nut this afternoon by the hon. member for Charlotte, that in the old country there is supervision over the cutting of timber. A man is not permitted to cut timber below a certain stumpage; this is all controlled by the central government. To my mind this is one further argument in favour of some kind of central control.
In Sweden, Germany and those other countries where they have been successful in the matter of conservation, there is only one control, whereas in Canada we have ten governments and ten controls. I am not saying that the federal government should take over the responsibility of looking after our forests, but I do believe that if we had a conference of federal and provincial governments some organization might be set up to bring about uniformity of control all across Canada in matters of this kind.
Then there is another matter to which I drew attention some few years ago. I refer to the very great amount of lumber used in the production of newspapers, and not necessarily only in this country. I believe as a matter of fact that it obtains in greater degree in the United States. I am not referring to the Canadian daily newspapers but rather to the Sunday issues, some of which weigh three or four pounds. I am told that it requires the pulp from one to two hundred acres of Canadian forest land to produce one of these issues. Surely this is a great waste, and I believe the time will come when we will realize that this production has been used wastefully. One 
buys lumber to put up a building or a house that will last for many years. On the other hand the lumber used in the production of these weekly newspapers is a complete waste, once the newspaper has been read. It is, to use a common expression, gone with the wind, and there is nothing left to show for it.
I agree entirely with the resolution presented this afternoon by the hon. member, and I feel it is something to which we should give serious attention. As has been suggested, our people should be more educated in the conservation of our forests, as well as of our soil and water resources, and the wildlife throughout the country. I believe a good job is being done in our schools where we teach our young people the great necessity for locating and putting out fires, as well as the necessity for observing the game laws and protecting the animals; in general, looking after the welfare of those gifts with which we have been so blessed.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Poulioi (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the sponsor of this resolution. He has given us an example this afternoon of how one can look after the conservation of the natural resources in the area where he lives. He deserves a lot of credit for that and I think he will succeed in being acknowledged the successor of the late John MacNicol, the former member for Davenport, who was a great explorer and who did much to publicize our natural resources. He urged the conservation of our natural heritage.
A debate like this does credit to the House of Commons. Each hon. member who has spoken has shown that he is taking this matter seriously. Valuable suggestions have been made by all those who have spoken this afternoon and evening. I am particularly happy to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage) upon his appointment and upon the way he deals with matters which come within the jurisdiction of his department, as well as with similar matters that do not come within his department.
The distinction is easy to make. Because of the principles laid down in the British North America Act it is easy to draw the line of demarcation between provincial and federal jurisdiction. In this case the sponsor of the resolution suggests that the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation.
In the first place, is it for this parliament to suggest a dominion-provincial conference to deal with matters which are entirely under provincial jurisdiction? I submit that the reverse should be the case. At the present

time all resources are under provincial jurisdiction. The Minister o f Resources and Development has jurisdiction over national parks, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which entail the districts of Mackenzie, Keewatin and Franklin. That is the only area over which the minister has jurisdiction. He has jurisdiction extending into the far north to the north pole, including all the Arctic territories.
It would be difficult for this parliament to call a dominion-provincial conference to include people who do not live within a province. The Yukon is a constituency, not a province, and the same is true of the Northwest Territories. If we abided by the constitution, if we remained within our own jurisdiction, the conference would be held only for those people who come under the Minister of Resources and Development. It would be people from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the Eskimos of the north; and a dominion-provincial conference on conservation would exclude the ten provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
I could understand a province, say British Columbia, writing to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to ask for a dominion-provincial conference; I could understand such a move by any other province, but I cannot understand the reverse. I do not see how this parliament can take the initiative in inviting the provinces to discuss matters which are under their exclusive jurisdiction.
I believe when the sponsor of the resolution thinks this over he will realize that there is more to it than he thought at first. I do not want to tell him anything that is new to him, but I do want to remind him of what he knows in order that he does not forget it. That is the point I am going to make tonight.
I do not think there is any unanimity among the provinces in asking for intervention in a matter like this. For those who are touchy about autonomy there would be no request for intervention by the government of Canada in provincial affairs. It is a very delicate matter. There are agreements with only some of the provinces, not with all. Therefore how can we expect unanimity among the provinces to meet here in Ottawa to discuss with the dominion government matters which are under their own jurisdiction? They would be more likely to say, "Mind your own business; you have nothing to do with it''.
Does the hon. gentleman who sponsored this resolution have a power of attorney from the province of British Columbia to make that suggestion on behalf of his own province?
8327&-57
Conservation
If so, how is it that the premier of that province was reluctant to get in touch with the Prime Minister of Canada about that very matter? It was not for the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-for whom I personally have great admiration, for he is in fact one of our most popular colleagues-to take the initiative and say, "Let us call a dominion-provincial conference."
In the first place, a dominion does not exist any longer. It is a federal-provincial conference, and I use that expression because I read it in his resolution. Now he takes it upon himself to substitute himself for the premier of British Columbia and move a resolution in the house here which theoretically may sound well but which in practice is absurd because it means an infringement upon the rights of the provinces.
I could understand Premier Bennett of British Columbia writing to the Prime Minister of Canada and telling him, as is usually done: "My dear Prime Minister, I would be very thankful if you would call at my request"-he would say-"a dominion-provincial conference"-he would use that very expression-"at the earliest possible moment to consider the conservation of our natural resources." Any other premier could write that, but I do not see how the premiers of the provinces who have made no agreement with regard to the conservation of natural resources could start by asking for a conference on the subject.
There was one agreement with the province of New Brunswick, but that was all. There was no other agreement with regard to conservation with that province, but that was at least one kind of agreement, and there are provinces with no agreement at all with Ottawa. They will surely be shocked to see that an hon. member has assumed that he has the power to speak on behalf of the premiers of the provinces. If those gentlemen feel as they might about it, the hon. member might be shown letters that would not be gratifying to him or to those on whose behalf he is supposed to speak, but without any authority whatever to do so.
It is a good thing to discuss these matters on the basis of at least a rudimentary knowledge of our constitution. There are some members who have visions; they have a dream; they imagine it would be a good thing if this or that should be done, and they take for granted that it will be done through them and then they proceed with resolutions of every kind which they put on the order paper, forgetting as they do that the basis of the argument is the most essential thing. They are discussing these matters in too light

Conservation
a manner. They should be-I would not say ponderous, because many of them are-but I would say they should be more serious. I am not speaking of anything new because they know all that though they seem to forget it as soon as they rise to speak in the house.
My earnest praise goes to the new Minister of Resources and Development for the way he spoke this afternoon about the respect by Ottawa of provincial rights. He deserves to be commended for that. I may call him a young colleague, because I was here a long time before he came, but he has done exceptionally well and what is to his credit is that when he speaks in the house he never forgets fundamentals. That may seem obvious, but he deserves a lot of credit for it.
I am very sorry to have to disagree with the hon. member for Kootenay West in practice although I agree with him in theory. I agree with him in theory because of discussions I had with an old uncle of mine, a civil engineer, who was very much interested in conservation, and in the successful efforts of Clifford Pinchot, who was appointed by Roosevelt to look after the conservation of water and forest resources in Pennsylvania and who was governor of the state of Pennsylvania when he died.
But, according to the notes I have taken, my hon. friend complained that there was some trouble suffered by the municipality of Trail and the neighbouring area, and he said that was due to the negligence of Ottawa and of the government of British Columbia, if I understood him correctly. That is his own problem and I am very sorry that everything is not rosy and that the government of British Columbia has not satisfied the expectations of my hon. friend. But I know that when there was a terrible flood in the Fraser river valley the government of British Columbia sent an SOS to Ottawa and the SOS was answered by the government which came to the rescue of that province.
I want my hon. friend to know this, although I think he already knows it. The British Columbia government said to the Ottawa government, "We had a disastrous flood and it is ruinous for our people. It is destroying the finest and richest land in British Columbia. We cannot build the dikes to prevent any further flooding, and we want you to help us." The dominion government, as my hon. friend calls the government of Canada, rightly agreed to assist. But as soon as there was a call from the government, I remember-and those of my hon. friends who were in the house must remember- there were complaints that the King government was late in doing this and that. The

reason was obvious. The British Columbia government had not moved any more than it moves now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would my friend permit an explanation? The government of British Columbia in connection with the Columbia first appealed to this government in 1896 without result.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is not serious. I summarize the discussion that took place in this house. I do not suffer from amnesia. I remember very well what occurred then. The matter was this. There were some members on both sides of the house who were complaining about the tardiness of the government in rescuing the victims of the flood in British Columbia. I remember the Prime Minister-whether he was Mr. King or Mr. St. Laurent is immaterial; he was the leader of my party-saying this: "I cannot do anything before I receive an SOS from the British Columbia government, because I do not want the government of Canada to infringe upon the rights of any provincial government." That is true. That is something. Let my hon. friend cross the fence and speak to the "Socred" premier of British Columbia and tell him this: "Although I belong to the C.C.F. party, I hope this time, in spite of the fact that you are 'Socred', my dear premier, you will move on, do something and speak to the Prime Minister of Canada."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We will do our best.


Mr. Blackmore:: Say "Social Credit", not "Socred".


Jean-François Pouliot: I am saying it to the hon. gentlemen through the columns of Hansard.


John Horne Blackmore: Say "Social Credit"; be fair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not lack in respect in any way, shape or form for this hon. gentleman. I do not know him. I shall probably never meet him in my life. However, I want things to be done correctly and according to the principles of the constitution of this country.
If I am quoting him correctly, my hon. friend said that the federal and provincial governments seem to be avoiding their responsibility in respect of the aforementioned matter, and that there is great need for dominion-provincial co-operation because this is a problem that has to be faced in the very near future or we are going to see a great deal of damage to the communities adjacent to the river and lake systems, and so on. It is not a matter for a dominion-provincial conference. It is a matter for discussion between

the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. If we have a problem in our part of the country, it is a problem to be discussed not at an interprovincial conference but at a conference between the government of Canada and the provincial government concerned. That is the way I understand it. What is to be done in our part of the country does not immediately concern the hon. gentleman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am always concerned.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not necessary to be concerned too much in that sense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We helped you get that railway.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking of railways, may I say that one of my colleagues sent me a clipping to the effect that the premier of British Columbia does not want any more railways in the province.


Harold Edward Winch: What was that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, he does. He wants the federal government to take over the Pacific Great Eastern.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member to repeat what he said about the premier of British Columbia and railways?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was a catcher.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are discussing a resolution on conservation. We are not discussing railways.


An hon. Member:: Conservation of railways.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wanted my hon. friend to rise. My hon. friend made important suggestions about improving the conservation of natural resources in this country. They may be good or bad suggestions. It is not for me to decide that matter. But would it not be a good thing for him to write to the premier of each province and submit his suggestions for conservation in Canada? Then if they are satisfied they will immediately write to the government of Canada asking for a provincial conference. But it would be a good thing for him to be careful about it and not take a chance too quickly.
There are other things I want to say also. My friend the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was all honey when he spoke about New Brunswick business-I have taken a few notes-about the woodlots, the limited means of the province and so on. If the note I took is correct, he said that owing to that fact it was impossible for the province to look after the conservation of natural resources within its borders. That is a sad thing. He went so far as to suggest-and I have taken it down in writing-that the dominion 8327&-574
Conservation
government-and again it is "the dominion government", not "the government of Canada"-should take control of our forests. What do the other provinces think about that? He spoke about the crown lands of New Brunswick. What does the premier of New Brunswick think about that? What does Premier Flemming think of the policy enunciated by the hon. member for Royal to the effect * that the dominion government should take control of the forests of this province? What will the premier of Quebec think of that? What would the premier of Nova Scotia, Hon. A. L. Macdonald, think of that? What would the "Socred" premier-


John Horne Blackmore: Social Credit.


Jean-François Pouliot: -of Alberta think of that?


John Horne Blackmore: Get it straight.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the hon. gentleman, who is the epitome of universal knowledge, if he, speaking on behalf of Premier Manning of Alberta, will tell this house that the premier of Alberta wants the government at Ottawa to take control of the forests of Alberta. I challenge him to answer yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not mixing up in that nonsense. It is "Social Credit", not "Socred".


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman is not sport enough to take up the challenge, let him-


An hon. Member:: Shut up.


John Horne Blackmore: I will take up the challenge of the hon. gentleman later. But let him use the expression "Social Credit" and not "Socred".


Jean-François Pouliot: I am here to bring my hon. friend back to common sense, and it is a tremendous job. I do not expect to succeed. Everybody can see how hard it is.


John Horne Blackmore: Say "Social Credit".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us get back to conservation.


Jean-François Pouliot: The premier of Alberta is gifted enough to deny the policy advocated by the hon. member for Royal.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear. I agree with him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well. I never thought I would win my point. It is quite a miracle. I appreciate the fact. My hon. friend has spoken earnestly according to his good judgment. He realizes that when one forgets his theories he may become human again.


John Horne Blackmore: Merci beaucoup.

Conservation


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not have to tell my friend the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that if the province of New Brunswick has financial difficulties of any kind there is a great remedy for that province. The remedy is to annex itself to the province of Quebec, whose finances are much sounder than those of the province of New Brunswick. The annexation of New Brunswick to Quebec would settle many difficulties. But if they proceed with their schemes I want to say that the government of Canada has been most generous and the parliament of Canada has been most generous in passing legislation by virtue of which the government of Canada pays 37J per cent to help the provinces to develop their water power.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing a resolution on conservation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, it is not precisely conservation of water; it is conservation of water power. That is what I want to bring to your attention. I am speaking of the conservation of water power in this country. If the government of New Brunswick has not enough financial backbone to pay the remainder of the cost of these big dams, the only thing for them to do is to be annexed to the province of Quebec.
I have no authority to say that the government will not consider any other request the government of New Brunswick may make with regard to the conservation 'of water power within its limits, but what I say is that I have enough confidence in the good sense and good judgment of the Prime Minister and the members of this government to believe earnestly that the Canadian government will never agree to advance money, millions of dollars, nearly half a billion dollars, to the province of New Brunswick without interest on an I.O.U. This is not what should be done.
Some years ago when the natural resources which belonged to Canada were transferred by the government of Canada to the prairie provinces, I was greatly concerned. I thought of the experience not of the provinces but of the governments that were there. I worried for the future. I said that they would come again to beg for new favours, and what guarantee would the dominion government have then? It was done as a fine gesture of sportsmanship and generosity. Ottawa divested itself of all rights that it had in our natural resources. They were handed over without any conditions to the western provinces, which played politics with them. They came and they came again and
[Mr. Blaekmore.l
they came once more and they came again asking for money at the expense of the central provinces of Canada, and Ottawa had no guarantee of the natural resources of the prairie provinces.
Well, sir, I am very glad that the Prime Minister has decided to put in charge of the department-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member once more that we are discussing a resolution on conservation and not a subject which we discussed a day or so ago concerning a new name for a department.


Jean-François Pouliot: You cannot imagine, sir, how much my heart aches when I realize that your mind is too quick and you do not afford me the opportunity to conclude my sentence. If I cannot conclude my argument, at least please let me finish my sentence. I was just speaking of the minister who replied on behalf of the government. I was saying that I was satisfied as a member of parliament, as the second senior member of the House of Commons, to see that the Prime Minister had chosen to head the Department of Resources and Development a young member who is fair, who is ambitious, who realizes how great is the future of Canada; and I congratulate not only the Minister of Resources and Development but also the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Now, before I conclude-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The sentence.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does my hon. friend suggest that what I have said is out of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I was just thinking that it was a long sentence you were concluding.


Jean-François Pouliot: I iam not begging for charity. I am using my right as a member of parliament to discuss a matter that is before the house. I do not come here as a beggar. I come here as a member who was a member *when my hon. friend was wearing short pants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are a year or so out.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now, sir, it is not a question of age. It is a question of seniority. Besides, I know my hon. friend is much younger than I am. To conclude, over stormy seas, over seas agitated by a hurricane-no, it is not as bad as that-to conclude I thank you, sir-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is where I got out of my short pants.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and I thank all members of the House of Commons, and I realize once


more that it is not useless to speak common sense in the House of Commons.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Conservation
provincial governments, some plan will be evolved to bring about a permanent solution.
Some suggestion has been made that it appears as though the provinces and the municipalities expect the federal government to do everything. We do not expect that. We are only requesting that assistance be granted and co-operation given so these problems will be solved for the betterment of the people of our riding, and consequently the betterment of the people of Canada as a whole.


Mr. Adamson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am a bit confused at the moment, because just before my deputy left the chair he led me to understand that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) was to be given the floor for a few minutes. I do not know in what order members have been called, but does the hon. member agree to yield to the member for Vancouver South?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, I gladly give way to the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: I
had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to be able to give general support to my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on all except one detail of his proposal.
Before I do so I really should take issue with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) on one point he made. Surely it would be very poor conservation policy for Canada to cut down on the amount of newsprint available for newspapers in Canada or the United States, simply for the purpose of saving the pulpwood in our forests. After all, we conserve our pulpwood and we conserve our forests for use, either in building homes or for other purposes. Surely if we are looking at our democratic civilization today we can say there is no higher purpose or greater need in a democracy than the education of the people. The education of the people requires exactly the kind of newspapers that we have in the democratic world, without any kind of limitation whatsoever.
So it seems to me that perhaps the time we spend on these debates on conservation is very well worth while, and that we bring out not only the things we should do but also those things we should have liked doing. Altogether apart from the fact that newspapers are the poor man's university, the university of all the people of a democracy, I think the pulp and paper companies of British Columbia, or the pulp and paper companies of Ontario or of Quebec or of New Brunswick, would take a very dim view of that kind of conservation that would cut

down the amount of newsprint that could be exported to newspapers on the other side of the boundary line, or sold to newspapers on this side.
I must say, however, that it does give me a great deal of pleasure to support the general purpose behind the resolution of my good friend from Kootenay West. We in British Columbia are often divided in politics and in other ways; but I think all of us are proud of the hon. member for Kootenay West, and of the long and sustained fight he has put up for this very fine purpose, that of conserving our natural resources.
We are also proud of him because he practises what he preaches. On his own very admirable tract of country up in that beautiful lake country he has a small, model administration of what the conservation of natural resources ought to be. And, Mr. Speaker, if I were going to trespass into another field, I would say he has a most marvellous stand of potential flagpoles up in that part of the Dominion of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you fellows voted
against the flag.


Elmore Philpott: On the general question of
conservation, in connection with my profession it has been my great privilege to travel throughout a great deal of this world. One thing I have noticed is that wherever one sees a country in which a mighty civilization once flourished but where that mighty civilization no longer exists, he always sees certain signs. In every case one would see the slaughter of the forests, the destruction of the soil, the neglect of irrigation works.
Those of us who were taught the Bible in our younger years were taught that the land described in the Bible as the holy land was a land of milk and honey. Yet anyone who will visit that land today will see a terrible desert, and will have great difficulty in convincing himself that it could have been a land of milk and honey. Then the traveller may go next door to that wonderful country of Lebanon where, in ancient writ, we read that the king of Tyre sent the tall cedars tc the builders of the temple in Jerusalem. Yel if we go to that same country of Lebanon today we see only waste and destruction where at one time those magnificent cedar forests stood.
Then if the traveller would go over into Mesopotamia, or whatever one might wish tc call that area, he would think of those ancienl days when Mesopotamia was a comparatively greater wheat growing land than Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta in our owr century.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we do need to labour the point that when civilizations go down, the first things that begin to go down are the natural resources. I am not particularly concerned about the old question as to which came first, the hen or the egg. I am not concerned particularly about whether those countries allowed their natural resources to decline because their governments had previously declined, or whether it was the other way around. The tact remains.
When I come to this country, one of the pleasures I have in returning to eastern Canada where I was born and brought up is to see that in the 20 or 25 years I have been away-but not, I hope, because of that -considerable progress has been made. Progress is being made in many directions in connection with the conservation of our natural resources. In the debate in reply to the speech from the throne we heard our good friend from Waterloo South (Mr. White) tell of the progress being made in conservation in the Grand river valley. I am happy to learn that the treasury of Canada puts up 37i per cent of the cost of that and similar works. When I go to my boyhood haunts, along some of those rivers which now flow into lake Ontario, I am glad to see that in those river valleys there are the beginnings of these conservation measures that mean so much to this Canada of ours.
I think the hon. member for Kootenay West is right when he expresses concern on behalf of British Columbia and says that those of us who live in western Canada in general, and British Columbia in particular, do not want to see in western Canada a repetition of some of the mistakes made in eastern Canada. The very fact that we are now having to undertake these very costly remedial works in an effort to reforest valleys like the Grand river valley must be an indication to us of the heavy expense involved in any attempt to redeem our mistakes of the past.
We do not want the same mistakes in western Canada; and I think it is very much to the point that we should have the most urgent conservation measures in British Columbia. One such measure that I think could be applied without waiting around for any conference-because I may be wrong, but I am not a great believer in conferences -would be to extend into British Columbia the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. All I know about conferences is what I read in the paper-and I believe one was held today- but I think it is hard enough for even two governments to agree, without expecting the government of Canada to agree with the governments of the ten provinces.
Conservation
I believe the enactment of legislation extending the operation of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into British Columbia would do untold good for that province. It has done a great deal for the prairie provinces which for a long time past have not had the same brand of government that has been in office at Ottawa, but when it came to the matter of getting handouts from the government here have been the white-haired boys. I think we in British Columbia would take it as a measure of long overdue justice if the provisions of that act were extended to apply to us on exactly the same basis as for a long time they have applied to the prairie provinces.
We are proud to see many conservation measures going on. We heard some debate this evening as to what is the proper name for the government in Alberta. Well, let us just call it the government of Alberta; but it is worth noting that under federal grants a very comprehensive scheme is being carried out on the east slope of the Rocky mountains. I should think it would be well within the purview of parliament to consider similar measures for the benefit of the west slope of those mountains, and in the not too distant future.
As I have said, except as a last resort I do not believe in these general dominion-provincial conferences, or whatever name one may apply to them. They are difficult to arrange. I would point out, however, that as need arises we have these conferences all the time. The latest of them was held this very day in this very building. But I would give all the support I can to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) when he stresses the urgent need for strong decisions on matters of policy in connection with the Columbia river conservation plan.
It is going to be necessary in the next few years to make certain decisions in regard to the Columbia river valley. For instance, it will be necessary to decide whether we are going to build dams near the United States border or whether we are going to build dams and great artificial lakes up in what is called the Big Bend. It will be necessary to make these policy decisions. Unless they are made in time it will not be possible to properly plan our national highways system.
May I conclude by once again congratulating the hon. member for Kootenay West upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house on behalf of the people of British Columbia, regardless of party. While I personally cannot agree with him on the small detail that a dominion-provincial conference

Conservation
would be the only way or the best way to further this great aim, I think we on this side of the house take second place to none in our desire to achieve the same purpose.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) who has just spoken has referred to newspapers as being a form of education. I can well understand his view in that regard as he is a well-known columnist and no doubt he regards newspapers as such. I wish there were more columnists who would regard newspapers in the same way.
I think he misunderstood the point made by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) about newsprint. The hon. member for Royal was not contending that we should not be producing newsprint-we should, because newsprint is one of our major exports to the United States-but the hon. member was deploring the waste of newsprint which went on, and this has been particularly obvious in the happenings subsequent to the newspaper strike in New York. I thought that should be corrected and that the hon. member should correctly understand the intent of the hon. member for Royal.
Those of us who have been here before and heard the problems of the Fraser valley spoken about must agree that we are hearing them tonight in a somewhat more temperate form. I think if the debate today has shown one thing, it is the value of history. As there has been considerable discussion about dominion-provincial rights, I would submit that the axiom of dominion-provincial jurisdiction as it affects this matter could be stated as follows. The provincial governments have complete jurisdiction over their natural resources; the federal government has a valid interest in conserving and developing those resources, and can properly give assistance in doing so provided it is under agreement with the governments concerned.
I think that sets out the difference in jurisdiction as between the provincial and federal governments. I do not see anything in this resolution which transgresses that fundamental precept. However, rivers, erosion, rain, pestilence, fire and drought unfortunately do not recognize the authority of the British North America Act, and therefore are no respecters of provincial boundaries.
I should like to refer briefly to a report that appeared in the New York Times of today, by Professor Sears of Yale. I think this brings into sharp focus the whole problem we are faced with in the conservation of our natural resources in Canada. A recent

bit of research by Professor Sears and the Yale geological school by means of drilling in the dried-up lakes of New Mexico has shown that that area had been a site of a vast forest. They were able to trace the transition from spruce to pine and from oak to alder as the forest cover, and that that showed the progressive drying up of the area.
The research showed that the continent is becoming drier and warmer at an ever-increasing rate and, owing to the growth of population and other causes which are still not perfectly understood, not only are we accelerating our pace as far as industrial and technological growth is concerned but actually we are accelerating our climatic changes. The transition in climate and precipitation which used to take hundreds of years may be expected in the near future to occur in from two to three generations.
We are seeing that in Canada. While our rainfall is reasonably good, there are areas that have drought today which never had drought before. Even the forests of the coast range of British Columbia which at the turn of the century never knew a fire hazard now must be closed for weeks at a time because of lack of precipitation. That is an example of the change that is going on, of what we might almost call the speed-up of climatic change on the North American continent.
There is never much interest in conservation because it does not become a matter of political combat. If I were to say that the Prime Minister had webbed feet and that his ability to learn to swim this summer was due to that fact, it would immediately become a matter of controversy and the right hon. gentleman might have to take off his shoes and socks. But if I say that the water table in southwestern Ontario has fallen 14 feet in the last twelve years, that is not anything new. The fact that it has fallen, however, may produce drought conditions in that area which will have most serious repercussions, not only on our generation but on the two generations to follow immediately.
We discuss conservation; it comes up annually in this house, and this debate is a pattern of what we have heard before. Practically no interest is taken outside this house in the debate because there is no personal combat in the debate, and it is as effective in curing the situation and preventing the future waste of our natural resources as the efforts of a small boy on the Lions Gate bridge in Vancouver spitting into Burrard inlet would be in causing a tidal wave in Japan.

We talk about it; we have this pious debate; we are all agreed that something must be done about conservation, and we are all in favour of doing everything we can. But like Mark Twain and the weather, we talk about it and none of us do anything.
I propose to do everything I can during this session to see that the committee on mines, forests and waters is called, for as far as I know-and this is my fourth parliament- even going back to the first world war, this committee has never met. If we are really serious in trying to combat this problem of conservation we surely need the help of people who know what to do.
The debate today has shown a vast variety of different opinions, all expressed honestly and genuinely by members of parliament, all of whom know one or two facets of the problem, but none of us I venture to say are really competent to speak on conservation in its scientific sense.
I humbly submit through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government that if we are serious in wanting to do something about conservation, then this committee must be set up so those people who know the problem and know what should be done can come before a committee of this house and tell us what the problems are.
There are no votes in conservation. It is like sin and the clergy. Everybody is against sin and everybody for conservation, but nobody does anything about it except to have one debate every year when everybody shouts "Hurrah, we are all in favour of conservation; we are all in favour of stopping erosion; we are all in favour of stopping forest fires and seeing that the world is a better place to live in", but we don't do anything about it. I humbly submit that we do not do anything about it because we do not try to get those people who know what should be done to come and talk to us.
There are one or two further aspects of this problem that I wish to deal with, and the first is metals. In the last ten years- and I am referring to 1942 to 1952-the world has used up more metals, with the possible exception of one or two, than were used up in the entire history of the world up to the beginning of the last war. The replacement of these metals through the discovery of new deposits has not been going on at the pace it should. The United States, which was probably and rightly considered the most integrated colony the world had ever seen, certainly up to the end of the first quarter of this century, is now deficient in every single metal with the exception of magnesium and molybdenum. The United States is deficient 83276-58
Conservation
in all fuels with the exception of coal, and coal is becoming more and more the product of the chemical and steel industries.
Canada today is the greatest storehouse of these metals and that fuel, and we must think not in terms of five or ten years but in periods of a quarter or half a century at a time. We have been entrusted with these vast resources, and we cannot say they will do us until the next election, that they will do us for the next five or ten years, or that they will be sufficient even for our lifetime. Our responsibility to this country is so great that we must endeavour to have a long-term policy not only in the twentieth century but long after that.
Hon. members may say, that is a geologist talking. Canada is the country where geologists must talk because we are moving at such an increased pace and our natural resources are such that every single pound of metal we have must be preserved.
Another matter I wish to deal with is that of atomic energy. Atomic energy gives hope for power but it is unlikely that the price per unit of energy, at least for a great number of years, will be competitive with the price of energy obtained from falling water. I have the figures for 1950; these are the latest I could get. The per capita use of energy expressed in tons of coal was as follows, and these are international figures: United States 8-1; Canada 6'6; United Kingdom 4-5; France 2-3; South Africa 2-3; Soviet union 1-7; Japan -4; India -1. Today the Canadian figure has increased and the gap between us and the United States has greatly narrowed.
Our prosperity, as I have said before, is based on a cheap source of power, a cheap source of electrical energy; and this means that we are able to produce manufactured goods and such things as aluminum, which require great sources of energy. The cheaper we can have the energy the cheaper we can produce metals, and the less ore will have to be left in the ground because of the economic process of producing and selling the finished metal. If your costs of mining, smelting and milling-which are largely or at least in some way dependent upon power -can be reduced, then rock which was waste rock becomes ore; and that, Mr. Speaker, is conservation of our natural resources in the best form.
Every year we hear of thousands of acres of topsoil which are washed out to the sea. The river and its entire basin should be considered

Conservation
as a unit. We cannot merely consider rivers as sites on which to put hydroelectric plants or power dams. Unless we consider the entire river as a unit our power dams, it there is erosion or if there is silting, will become useless. Boulder dam today is silting up. The Boysen dam on the Big Horn river which was recently built-only three or four years ago-I believe has an expected life of just 50 years because the reservoir will be filled with silt. This means that this great source of energy will become useless because the river and the whole drainage basin were not considered as a unit.
In that regard I think there must be a new concept. These drainage basins must not be considered purely as a provincial concept, because they cross and recross provincial and international boundaries. As I have said before, rivers, drainage and rainfall have no respect for provincial boundaries.
To give you another example of what has been happening in the United States because of the destruction of soil, let us consider the weed halogeton which is the evil weed and which kills cattle. It destroys whole ranges of cattle and sheep because of its excretion of oxalic acid. It makes the whole range barren; not only is it barren, but it is a death trap for any cattle or sheep which try to graze there. That weed can get root only if the soil is destroyed. We North Americans have been terribly guilty in destroying our soil.
Then let us consider another aspect of this matter, namely pollution of streams. This capital city of Ottawa thinks nothing of dumping raw sewage right into the Ottawa river, thus polluting the whole river below us for miles and miles. We do not complain. Raw sewage is dumped right into the Ottawa river. That is a disgraceful situation.
Industrial wastes, without any thought being given to the matter, were dumped into the streams of old Ontario. All the rivers which are tributary to lakes Erie, Ontario and Huron were once limpid streams full of fish. In my grandfather's time the Don, the Humber and the Credit were salmon rivers. They were not destroyed by sewage; they were destroyed by industrial wastes. I believe that is a problem which we cannot allow to go unsolved. The treatment of industrial wastes which are being dumped into the rivers is something that becomes a responsibility of all of us in order to see that the generations to come have a country of which they can be proud.
I do not want to keep the house too long. I started late. I have an amendment. If the house will bear with me for just a couple of minutes longer, I want to speak of two

other problems. One is forest cover. By those who know, it is considered that a 14 per cent forest cover is necessary to keep the proper balance of the soil with regard to humus. Today we have less than 5 per cent forest cover in what is known as old Ontario. In other words we have about one-third of what is necessary. Consequently water tables are being lowered and ground water is disappearing, with resultant drought. Rivers are drying up, wells are being depleted and the farm economy is suffering. In areas such as mine where you have large, growing municipalities, the problem of municipal growth is complicated because of the water problem. I hate to think of the cost to the average new house owner in order to provide water.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment and I have just one thing to say before doing so. I think I can finish before ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is now one minute after ten.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to restate our previous stand on the matter. The function of government is not to own or to manage but merely to see that those who own or manage do so without destroying our national heritage and our resources. Our policy can possibly be stated in the sentence, "Develop but do not destroy". The function of the dominion government is as far as possible to see that at least we know what to do. At present, while we may care, the debate today at least has shown that we do not know. I therefore ask the government to see that the committee on mines, forests and waters is called in the 1954 part of the first session of the twenty-second parliament.
I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell):
That all the words after "policy" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada:
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should refer the
hon. member to citation 315 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice. A new notice must be given in the Votes and Proceedings, under standing order 45, when a material change is to be made to a notice of motion before it is taken up by the house.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As it is now ten
o'clock, the house will stand adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 in the afternoon.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, do I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: I have not ruled on it. I
have just asked the hon. member to look at that citation, and I want to give the matter a little further thought myself. Perhaps later we can discuss it. In order to make the procedure regular, I should put the amendment. Mr. Adamson moves, seconded by Mr. Macdonnell:
That all the words after "policy" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada;
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion:
Business of the House
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we
shall continue in committee on the amendment to the Customs Act; then second reading of the bill to approve the financial agreement with the United Kingdom; then second reading of Bill No. 7, an act respecting the criminal law, on the understanding that it will only proceed to second reading and that the committee stage will remain until after the recess. Then we will take up second reading of the bill to amend the War Service Grants Act; then the bill amending the Canadian Forces Act, and then the amendments to the Northwest Territories acts.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, December 15, 1953