1953-01-30

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a
question of privilege which is one on which I am sure every member in the house would like to rise; in other words, may I say how delighted all of us are to see back in our midst once again the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. Smith). May I add that it is even a greater source of delight to us all to see him in such excellent health.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Since I
come from Nova Scotia I want to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in welcoming our fellow member from that province. I speak on behalf of all the people of Nova Scotia in welcoming him back to the House of Commons. We are very happy to have him here and delighted to see him looking so well.



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN PRICE AFTER MARCH 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) but in his absence and in the absence of his parliamentary assistant perhaps one of the cabinet ministers will answer. Was the Minister of Agriculture expressing government policy the other day when under pressure he stated that hogs would advance in price four cents a pound after March 1?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I do not know of any such
statement having been made by the Minister of Agriculture.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF SOUTHERN BOUNDARY TO 55TH PARALLEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Resources
and Development (Mr. Winters), notice of which I have given him. Have any representations been made by organizations in the Yukon to extend the boundary of the territory south to the 55th parallel, thus including parts of northern British Columbia? If so, can the Minister indicate the nature of the representations?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: 
Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister
whether the government is contemplating any action in connection with this suggestion?



LIBBY DAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent press statements by United States authorities that they are prepared to proceed with the Libby dam project, will the minister inform the house whether the United States proposals are sufficient to assure adequate compensation for the use in perpetuity of Canadian land and water resources?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question, which is of course of particular interest

Inquiries of the Ministry to the province of British Columbia. I should like to make a short statement in reply to it.
The hon. member is referring to an application which was submitted in January, 1951, on behalf of the United States government for the approval of the international joint commission of the construction of the Libby Dam project. This project would involve the construction of a dam on the Kootenay river at Libby, Montana, and the creation, upstream, of a reservoir flooding the Kootenay valley in Montana and for a distance of 42 miles in British Columbia.
Under the boundary waters treaty of 1909, a project such as this, which would affect the level of waters on both sides of the boundary, requires the approval of the international joint commission and of the governments of Canada and the United States. The government of British Columbia is also, of course, concerned in the matter since the project will involve the use and development of resources within the province. In a development of this sort consideration must be given not only to the question of compensation for property damages but also to the larger question of appropriate arrangements to ensure that those entitled to the benefits to be derived from the use of Canadian natural resources-in this case the people of British Columbia in particular and the people of Canada in general-should receive those benefits in full measure.
In putting the Canadian interest before the international joint commission, the Canadian government has therefore been concerned to ensure that benefits will accrue to Canada commensurate with the contribution which Canadian resources will make to the developed project. This is the matter that is at issue before the commission now, and I hope that it will be resolved soon. The development and use of natural resources within their boundaries is, of course, a matter within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. The Canadian government is making every effort to see that the needs and rights of the people in the area concerned are fully met and that the government of British Columbia is given every opportunity to present its views to the international joint commission so that the interests of the people of British Columbia can be fully protected.
I understand that, following recent discussions with the Canadian chairman of the international joint commission, the government of British Columbia, continuing studies initiated by the previous government of the province, is seeking the advice of a committee representative of public and private interests

as to the policy to be recommended to the international joint commission with regard to compensation and to the distribution of the benefits of the project to those entitled to them. I can assure my hon. friend that the Canadian government, whose approval is also required before any project such as this can be undertaken, will ensure that the interests of the people of British Columbia will be given full consideration.



CANADIAN CRACKED WHEAT CONTENT IN U.S. FLOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has any protest been made by the government to the United States authorities with regard to the bad effect on Canadian wheat sales caused by recent actions of certain United States importers who are reported as having used Canadian cracked wheat in flour for human consumption in that country?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may take the question as a notice. I should like to prepare an answer. The hon. member did send me notice of the question, but I did not receive it until just before the sitting opened. I should therefore prefer to leave it until Monday before answering.



DELIVERY QUOTAS IN WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he inform the house what progress is being made in raising delivery quotas in western Canada, and when it is expected the fifteen-bushel quota will be general? Is it expected that the fifteen-bushel quota can be raised before the end of the crop year?


George James McIlraith: Delivery quotas in the province of Manitoba have been at 15 bushels per seeded acre for all grains since December 9, 1952. As of today, the delivery quotas for all grains at all stations in Alberta have been raised to 15 bushels per seeded acre.
In the province of Saskatchewan good progress is being made in raising delivery quotas towards the 15 bushel per seeded acre

level. As of yesterday, the delivery quotas in effect for wheat at Saskatchewan stations were as follows:-
5 bushels per seeded acre - nil 8 bushels per seeded acre - 27 10 bushels1 per seeded acre -520 12 bushels per seeded acre -382 15 bushels per seeded acre -180
The Canadian wheat board anticipates that prior to the end of the crop year it will be possible to increase delivery quotas to more than 15 bushels per seeded acre at all points in the three prairie provinces and the board is working towards that objective.



P.E.I. CAR FERRY SERVICE BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY  OWNERSHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It has been brought to my attention that in a recent report from the labour department there is the statement that the ships Abegweit and Prince Edward Island of the Borden-Tormentine route are owned by the Canadian National Railways. I hope the editor of that report will have the correction made at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I will be very glad to see to it that any necessary correction is made at once.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue or of the Minister of Transport in connection with Canadian National Railways employees who are receiving refunds on account of moneys paid to the old pension fund. They want to know whether or not the government has considered making it unnecessary for them to show as income in 1953-


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1952.


John George Diefenbaker: 1952-the total amount received that year, because it was gathered together during the year. Can the minister say something about that, since there seems to be a difference among the various income tax branches in the dominion as to their interpretation of that provision?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Mir'slerof National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker,	matter
which I think might more properly be answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Under the present law, income is
Inquiries of the Ministry taxable in the year in which it is received. While the matter has been given some consideration, it has not been given final consideration. It would be necessary to have a change in the law in order to spread it over a number of years.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a further question? One of the income tax offices right here in the city says it is not income in the current year. Others are in a different position. How does this difference come about?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Someone is making a mistake.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, someone is making a mistake. And I have no knowledge of the matter being treated except upon a uniform basis throughout all our offices.


John George Diefenbaker: The Canadian National Railways employees want to know about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport? Can he say whether he has completed his study of this question following the representations made to him by Mr. Hutchinson; and has he taken the matter up with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The answer to the first question is yes. I have completed the study of the brief sent to me by Mr. Hutchinson, and I have replied to Mr. Hutchinson along the lines that I think the only method of granting relief as requested by him is by way of an amendment to the Income Tax Act-which matter is now under study by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.
I think the point the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised a moment ago arises from the fact that some of the refunds are made in 1953 and others in 1952. So that, because of that, it might well be possible that the income tax offices to whom he referred are not dealing with the same thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he is prepared to answer my second question? Has he made representations to the Minister of Finance concerning this matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance and I have been discussing the matter.



FISHERIES


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 44, to protect the coastal fisheries.

Coastal Fisheries


Mr. J. Waison MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. speaker, the main purpose of this bill is ;o protect Canadian fisheries in territorial md inland waters from encroachment from Eoreign fishing vessels and to regulate the ;onduct of foreign fishing vessels in our ;erritorial and inland waters.
This bill is a revision of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 43, which was first enacted in 1868 in an act intituled "The Foreign Fishing Vessels Act". This act was amended several times over the years, the last of which amendments was made in 1913.
The present bill is largely one of clarification and revision. A few obsolete provisions of the present act are removed.
Under the present act the governor in council may issue permits to United States dshing vessels to enter Atlantic ports to purchase bait, ice, seines, lines and all other supplies and outfits and for the transshipment of catches and the shipping of crews. The governor in council, however, has no power under the present act to grant similar privileges to fishing vessels of any other foreign power.
Previous to the entry of Newfoundland into the union certain privileges and arrangements had grown up whereby fishing vessels of foreign powers, particularly of Portugal, were permitted to enter Newfoundland ports. At the time of union the governor in council was given authority by section 9 of the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act, being chapter 6 of the statutes of 1949, to issue permits to fishing vessels of foreign powers to enter Newfoundland ports. The governor in council has no power to issue permits to the fishing vessels of any foreign power to enter Canadian ports on the Pacific coast.
The present bill will give the governor in council power to issue permits to the fishing vessels of any foreign power to enter any port in Canada. This power, however, will in no way affect the reciprocal port privileges on the Pacific coast for fishing vessels of the halibut fleet, which are regulated by treaty between Canada and the United States.
The present act purports to exclude from our territorial waters foreign fishing vessels. There is, however, no definition in the act of what constitutes a fishing vessel. It is doubtful whether, in its ordinary sense, the term "fishing vessel" could be construed to include vessels hunting seals or taking marine plants in our territorial waters. There is also serious doubt whether the present act

would exclude vessels that are not engaged directly in fishing, that is fish processing vessels or even mother ships, which do not engage in actual fishing but which store or transport fish caught by catching boats. It was therefore thought desirable to include in this bill a proper and complete definition of the term "fishing vessel."
The present act provides for forfeiture only as a penalty for foreign fishing vessels entering our territorial waters. In days gone by this was probably all right, but today, having regard to the value of trawlers, it is far too drastic a penalty. This bill therefore provides fines as alternative methods of punishment. By way of revision this bill provides a simplified procedure for seizure and forfeiture of any foreign fishing vessels. The procedure in the present act was deemed to be too cumbersome, involving great delays and expense.
Under the present act enforcement was vested not only in Canadian but also in British naval vessels and officers. The present bill provides that enforcement shall be the responsibility only of Canadian vessels and officers. The present act was designated as the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act. Since the act is no longer used for purposes of customs administration but entirely for fisheries protection against encroachment of our territorial waters by foreign fishing vessels, it was deemed desirable to change the name of the act accordingly.
The present act only excludes fishing vessels which are "foreign or not navigated according to the laws of Great Britain or of Canada" and which are not permitted to come in by "any treaty or convention or any law of Great Britain or of Canada". This bill would bring the law into conformity with the present status of Canada within the commonwealth and all fishing vessels, except Canadian fishing vessels, would be prohibited from coming into our territorial or inland waters unless permitted by a treaty or law of Canada.
The present bill has come to us from the Senate where it received very thorough consideration. It is intended that when this bill has had its second reading it will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Mr. MacDougall:: Would the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries answer a question which is perhaps made necessary by my	him correctly. Did he
say that mother ships were not considered to be fishing vessels, or did he say that they were considered to be fishing vessels?


John Watson MacNaught: What I said was that under the present act, which this bill consolidates, revises and amends, it was not clear that a mother ship would be included in the term "fishing vessel." For that reason it was deemed advisable to include an allembracing definition in the bill.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Coastal Fisheries
bait and other supplies went together. In addition, the fishermen could also export bait. They could catch bait and export it to these foreign fishing vessels when they were a few miles off the coast, and the purpose of the government was to try to prevent any trade of that kind with foreign fishing vessels so that they would not be put in practically the same position as the fishermen of Newfoundland.
Why were they doing that? Traditionally these countries had been using the Grand Banks for centuries, but because of the development of a national spirit on this side of the water we in Newfoundland felt-and I suppose the fishermen of the maritime provinces felt the same way about it-that, since we were so close to this natural resource, this great supply of fish, we had greater rights, or if we did not have greater rights there was no reason why we should go out of our way to help fishermen who had come across from Europe so that they could be in the same position as Newfoundland fishermen.
Portugal, Spain and Italy were great importers of Newfoundland codfish, and certainly up until the beginning of the first world war took tremendous quantities of Newfoundland fish. They were our principal export markets. During the first and second world wars it was not very easy to export salt fish to those countries, but since Portugal and Spain were neutral countries, large quantities of salt codfish could still be sent to them. However, since the second world war and because of the development of the bad exchange position, neither Spain nor Portugal has been in as good a position as formerly to purchase our fish. Spain particularly, on account of having undergone a civil war, was in no position to buy and has bought very little fish for many years. Portugal, however, did.
During the past fifteen or twenty years all countries have been paying more attention to the prosecution of the fisheries, and Italy, France, England, Spain and Portugal have embarked on a deliberate policy of increasing their fishing fleets. So far as Portugal is concerned, it still has a large fleet of what we call bankers in Newfoundland. These are vessels which use dories. One man goes out in a boat and catches fish by the use of the trawl that I described a little while ago. The other countries particularly, and Canada as well, now use vessels which are called trawlers. The trawls are not like the small hand trawl but are machine-operated trawls, and the vessels using them are better known to the trade as draggers. By trawling or dragging a big net across the smooth bottom

of the banks they take in huge quantities of all kinds of fish that are there, big and small.
Until a few years ago the policy of Canada was to prevent vessels of that kind being operated off the Atlantic coast, but the government of this country could not prevent the Spaniards, the British, the French, the Portuguese and the Italians using their draggers, and they have been using them and catching great quantities of fish. Canada also uses draggers. In 1951 the fishermen of Newfoundland, as I mentioned the other day, formed a federation. I believe it was the secretary of the organization who a short while ago criticized the policy of the government in permitting foreign fishing vessels, especially those of the Portuguese, to come to Newfoundland and get supplies not only of bait but of other things that they need to carry on the fisheries, and then catching large quantities of codfish to take home and because of this purchasing less Newfoundland salt codfish.
It saems to be a foolish policy for the government to permit foreign fishing vessels to come here and be fitted out and assisted in every way in catching codfish to be cured in Portugal while at the same time the Portuguese market for salt codfish has been declining. I understand that the position taken by the Portuguese is that at the present time they cannot get the kind of fish they want. They say they want larger fish than the Newfoundland trade is able to supply. Most of the large fish are used in supplying fresh and frozen fillets for export to the United States. Therefore there is only a small quantity available for sale to the salt codfish markets.
Recently the Portuguese did purchase a mixed quantity of 35 per cent large and 65 per cent small fish, but only under pressure. I have heard no statement from the parliamentary assistant with respect to what the attitude of the government is going to be on this matter. All we have is a bare statement similar to what was given in the other place which gives no more information than can be ascertained by looking at the bill that is before us with the explanatory notes on the side. It seems to me there is not sufficient information contained in the bare statement of the parliamentary assistant for the house to get a proper understanding of this legislation. I know that this is going to be applicable to all of Canada, but how far, practically, will it be effective in other parts of Canada, apart from Newfoundland? Foreign fishing vessels coming from Europe seldom use ports other than Newfoundland. I understand some of them went into Sydney up until July 1 when that was stopped. I do not know how

the practice originated and it would be interesting if either the minister or his assistant would tell us how they came to do that if it was illegal. What is going to be the policy of the government in regard to a matter of such vital importance to Newfoundland? The minister or the parliamentary assistant might also tell us what is going to be the position in so far as Newfoundland is concerned especially. I know this concerns the Pacific coast but I would like to know how it affects us in Newfoundland at the present time.
We would like to know what countries have the right by treaty to go into Newfoundland waters at the present time? I understand that United States vessels have that right although they do not exercise it. Have any other countries got that right? Are the other laws to which I referred as being in effect in Newfoundland, the Foreign Fishing Vessels Act of Newfoundland and the Export and Sale of Bait Fishes Act, going to be continued in force? I understand that, under the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada the laws in effect regarding fisheries are to continue for five years, except ithat by agreement with the provincial government they may be altered. Has there been any agreement or is there any intention of altering those laws regarding those fishing vessels entering Newfoundland, or the export of bait fish?
I said a few moments ago that we had a wonderful supply of bait fishes. They have some of these bait fishes in other parts of Canada as well. First of all there is herring, a fish that is quite common and which can be found along the maritime coast as well as that of Newfoundland. Then we have caplin. I am not sure but my hon. friend from Gloucester could perhaps tell me whether they have caplin in New Brunswick. Caplin are small fish, something like smelts. They come in millions all along the coast of Newfoundland and are very useful bait for certain periods. Then, of course, we have the squid, which is the most valuable bait of all. I think it is found chiefly in Newfoundland waters.
Recent developments in connection with the abandonment of fishing vessels pure and simple-that is, using hooks and line-is something upon which we should have a pronouncement some time or other. I understand that, following the Maclean report back in 1929, Canada is against the use of draggers. At the present time there is an attempt being made to have an international agreement upon the question to what extent they can be used. There is no doubt about it, they are
Coastal Fisheries
going to have an effect on the quantity of fish-codfish and haddock-available for marketing.
There is another type of fishing going on out there which the Spaniards are using. It seems to me, if we prohibit foreign fishing vessels from going into our ports that by the use of mother ships such as the parliamentary assistant has referred to or by the use of St. Pierre and Miquelon as a base for supplies, they could get around the difficulty of supplies even if they could not get bait. The Spaniards are using these pairs of small fishing vessels which are reputed to have already depleted the fisheries in the Irish sea and along the Spanish coast.
There is another feature about the policy that seems to be adopted by the government at the present time which I would mention. In 1950, when the government decided that it would assist the fisheries of Labrador and Newfoundland by invoking the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the minister stated that anyone who went to Labrador fisheries would do so at his own risk. As a result, many vessel owners sold their vessels and today there is little fishing done along that long stretch of Labrador coast from Blanc Sablon to Cape Chidley, a distance of 1,000 miles, What is going to be our attitude about foreign fishing vessels coming over here and going to Labrador when, as sometimes happens, they do not find fish on the Grand Banks? We are not using that fishery ourselves; we have discouraged our fishermen from going there. But are we going to allow foreign fishing vessels to go there?
The Portuguese government has a definite policy of assisting their fishermen right from infancy. They have a housing scheme foi their fishermen; they have schools to train their fishermen, and they train them from childhood up until they take their place wit! fishing vessels as full-fledged fishermen They teach them navigation, how to make nets and to do other things connected witl fishing. They show an interest in fishermen with which the policy of this country canno' at all compare. The Portuguese fishermer are fine men, as I have said, and they come into our ports and we have a good deal te do with them.
Finally, it seems to me that we should have a pronouncement from the minister or hi: assistant on these matters that I have men tioned. What is going to be the policy o: the government in regard to these fishing vessels? While I know that it is not in orde] to make a specific reference to any particulai section, it seems to me that the section deal ing with the regulations is so broad that i

Coastal Fisheries
does require comment. If the parliamentary assistant would only look at one subsection of the act he will see that it certainly raises questions.
The governor in council may make regulations
__for vessels to enter Canadian territorial
waters-
__for any purpose specified in the regulations.
Well, surely, a regulation or a provision of that kind in an act is too broad altogether. The regulations included in an act should have some definite purpose that is disclosed in this house when the bill is introduced. However the matter is going to be referred to the committee and perhaps this point will be further discussed there.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word on this bill.
This resolution, introduced by the ^ parliamentary assistant, is one of great interest to the province of Nova Scotia. I wish very briefly to thank the parliamentary assistant for the information that he has given to the house on this very important matter. As I understood what he had to say, this legislation which will follow the motion, and the regulations which the governor in council will be empowered to make under the bill, will open the way for the removal of an anomaly with respect to foreign fishing vessels using Atlantic ports, a matter that has caused some concern in our province. I know that the Nova Scotia Liberal members of this house have, in the past, made very strong representations to the minister and to the department respecting this matter. We are very pleased with the indication that action will be taken to rectify the situation.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I do not
intend to prolong the debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that it is going to be considered by the standing committee on fisheries. There are, however, one or two points that I should like to bring to the attention of the house at this time. This bill deals with the protection of the fisheries, and its scope is therefore restricted to our territorial waters. In my province some of the best fishing grounds, which would be called inshore fishing grounds, lie outside territorial waters about 15 or 20 miles off shore. I realize that the very best way to obtain protection of those fisheries is by an international agreement with the countries concerned. For that reason, I am following with a great deal of interest the progress that is being made in this direction by the northwest Atlantic fisheries commission. We know from experience, however, that international agreements take a long time to negotiate. In the meantime, I

feel that some thought should be given to the extension of our territorial waters.
Some years ago Norway submitted a case to The Hague court, which tribunal I believe handed down a ruling which endorsed the principle of headland to headland in delineating the territorial waters of that country. I doubt if even that ruling would afford very much protection to the fishing grounds in my province. In any event, I believe it is worth giving some thought to, and I should like to see that principle applied by drawing a line from Cape Sable to Cape Race. This would ensure the protection of the major part of the fisheries in the Atlantic provinces. If that does not prove feasible, I think the time will come when we shall have to give some thought as to whether or not we might extend our territorial waters to the continental shelf.
Now, when the former minister of fisheries was introducing his estimates last year, I believe it was June 19, the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned that foreign ships were permitted to have free entry into Newfoundland ports, while at the same time they were excluded from the ports of Halifax and Sydney as well as other ports in the maritime provinces. In reply to that question, the minister pointed out that this was due to an old ruling which had been allowed to lapse during the years of war, and was being more strictly enforced. He promised that the situation would be taken care of when the bill was revised, as is being done in the measure we have before us.
When he was replying to the member for Cape Breton South, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Fisheries expressed the hope that these permits which foreign countries would have to get would be used as a sort of bargaining power between the countries concerned and ourselves. When the member for Cape Breton South raised his question, I think he had in mind the fact that certain firms in the maritime ports were placed at a disadvantage in comparison with Newfoundland firms at St. John's. I believe we all agree that all firms in all parts of Canada should have equal rights and no firm should have one advantage which does not apply to the others. The relationship that existed in Newfoundland was not only an advantage to the merchants of St. John's; its main feature was the bargaining power which it gave us with Portugal, to whom we sold the major part of our salt fish.
I believe the time has come when we must again begin to use some of our bargaining power with Portugal. The friendly attitude which we felt that Portugal always had for

us seems to be deteriorating in these later years. We find that they are now driving a much harder bargain than they used to do. They insist upon having the choicest fish, and insist upon fish from Newfoundland of a higher standard than they are prepared to accept from other countries. Last March I had to bring before this house a situation in which some Portuguese draggers were dragging in territorial waters and becoming a menace to inshore fishermen from my riding. Also, we have reason to think that some of these Portuguese trawlers offer such high prices to the Newfoundland fishermen for bait that they are no longer interested in getting bait for sale to our cold storage plants, which are the only source of supply for our Newfoundland fishermen. I believe that these points might well be borne in mind, and that the principle of bargaining might well be considered when these permits are being issued.
The only other point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that any comparison between the advantages enjoyed by merchants or business firms in the maritime ports with those enjoyed by the merchants in Newfoundland ports tends to set up a sort of conflict of interest between the two provinces. I suppose in a competitive system such a thing is normal, and so long as it remains on that level between firms in one province and firms in another province I do not think we should worry too much about it. But the thing that worries me now is that we have removed that situation from the local level of individual firms and placed it on a provincial level, and now it becomes a conflict of interest not between firms but between one province and another.
If a situation should ever arise in which Newfoundland, in order to export its fish, or in order to ensure European markets for fish, should wish to have those permits rescinded, I can see that the people in the maritimes would raise some opposition to it. That would be a situation which would tend to mar the unity of purpose and the unity of interests which should exist between one province and another in this great nation of Canada.
I have just one more point, Mr. Speaker, and that is this. While we are considering the protection of the fisheries I should like to point out that we need to protect our fishing grounds not only from foreign draggers but also from local draggers, because on those small inshore fishing grounds the local dragger can do just as much damage as a foreign dragger. These are very small areas, and once they have been dragged over for 68108-95
Coastal Fisheries
twenty-four hours or forty-eight hours the ground is not of much use to the inshore fishermen.
I think that covers most of the points that I had in mind and I trust that the minister will find it possible to give them some consideration when this bill goes before the committee.


Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, this bill to protect the coastal fisheries does not affect any principle of any particular interest to the north shore of the province of New Brunswick, inasmuch as it is a rather rare occurrence that we have foreign vessels coming into our ports. When they have come it was to obtain a supply of bait.
As I said at the outset, it is a rather rare occurrence that foreign vessels come to our ports, but I have listened with interest to the expose made by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, and I understood that the main purpose of the bill was to prohibit foreign vessels from entering Canadian territorial waters. Yet, from a cursory examination of the proposed legislation which I have made, it strikes me that the proposed bill goes farther, and that in certain instances-if the departmental officers of the Department of Fisheries will read this bill over again they will realize it-the legislation directly prohibits the entry of a Canadian vessel into our own territorial waters.
I realize that at this stage of the legislation, according to parliamentary procedure, I am not supposed to refer to any particular section of the bill. I will do that when the bill reaches the committee stage. But I invite the hon. member for Prince and the legal officers of the Department of Fisheries to study this bill again and I am sure they will realize that there are prohibitions in this bill as against the master in command of a fishing vessel, and a fishing vessel according to legal interpretation, without any specification is general and could mean my vessel or my brother's vessel in Shippigan. It is in view of the fact that, according to its context,^ the proposed bill hits or could probably hit the Canadian fishermen that I rise on this occasion to bring this matter to the attention of the departmental authorities because, as the hon. member for Prince said in his remarks, higher fines and stiffer penalties are provided for infractions of this legislation by foreign vessels. I hold no brief for masters of foreign vessels, but I certainly would like the department to clothe with as much protection as possible our Canadian fishermen. In my submission,

Coastal Fisheries
there are dangers and apparent dangers, from the wording of this bill as it now reads, for the masters of our own Canadian vessels.
There are certain sections of the bill which make the entry of even a Canadian vessel into our own territorial waters an offence, and the same penalties in such a case would apply against the master of a Canadian ship just as they would apply to the master of a foreign ship. I submit, sir, that that is unfair.
I said a moment ago that the fines were considerably increased, and so they are. In some instances the fines provided by the former act are increased over fifty times what they were, and in other instances twenty-five times what they were heretofore. Again I say, as regards the masters of the foreign vessels I am not concerned, but I do say that such an increase in penalties for possible violations by the masters of our Canadian vessels is totally unfair.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is also an attempt .-I would not say it is intentional-in the terminology of this bill to take away from an accused, for instance, the master of a Canadian vessel who commits an infraction of this law, the possible defence that he would have of lack of intent. We have similar legislation in our Criminal Code, for instance, with respect to obstructing a peace officer. Hon. gentlemen know that this offence is triable in several alternate ways, first, by indictment; second, by summary trial, and third, by summary conviction. But the point I wish to make at this stage, Mr. Speaker, is that the offence provided by section 168 of the Criminal Code for obstructing a peace officer is prefaced by the important word "wilfully". Hon. members know that "wilfully" is synonymous with intentionally or deliberately.
The bon. member for Prince will admit that there is a similar infraction provided for in the bill now before the house, that of obstructing a protection officer. As I said before, when the bill reaches committee stage I shall refer more particularly to the section in question. The word "wilfully" is omitted from the offence of opposing or obstructing a protection officer, and I submit that this is most unfair, especially to any of our Canadian masters of ships, or seamen who might be taken to court on the offence of obstructing a protection officer under the proposed legislation.
Ever since I have been practising law, I have noticed that there is a general tendency in federal legislation to take away as much as possible from the individual certain rights and privileges which he has been guaranteed under both British and Canadian jurisprudence from time immemorial. Every new
[Mr. Roblchaud.l
piece of legislation that comes before this House of Commons, and those coming before some provincial legislatures, seem to try to take away, bit by bit, rights which we have enjoyed for centuries.
I submit that one of those rights is taken away by this very bill, through the absence of this most important word "wilfully", and I am sure counsel who have acted in defence will realize the importance of the word "wilfully" in a penal statute. Hence I submit, for the attention of departmental officers, especially the legal officers in the Department of Fisheries, the points I have made, and suggest that they should reread the whole context of the bill. I am hopeful that they will agree with me in what I have said about the word wilfully, and I think they will also agree that possible offences are created by the bill which would apply not only to foreign captains but, in certain circumstances, unfortunately to the masters of Canadian ships. This is so because of the generality of certain sections where reference is made only to a fishing vessel, without the reference being prefaced by the word "foreign".
As I said before, realizing the limitations placed upon me at this stage in procedure, I do not believe I can discuss the matter further. I see my hon. friend, the hon. member for Prince, nodding his head, so that I should think he is already seized of the point I have made at this stage. I would hope that the necessary corrections would be made in this piece of important legislation, before it is submitted to committee. If the corrections are not made, it will be my duty on behalf of the captains of our Canadian fleet to rise again and to bring more fully to the attention of the house the points I have in mind at the present time.


Mr. L. T. Slick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go over the ground already covered by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), or by my colleague the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter).
This bill will have far-reaching effects on the fishing industry in the province of Newfoundland. As I see it, the bill itself is not as important as the authority it will give in the matter of making regulations. The regulations will be the deciding factor in the reception accorded the bill by the authorities in Newfoundland.
In that province we shall have a serious situation if the regulations are enforced so as to debar foreign vessels from coming to our ports for supplies. It will affect adversely the pleasant relations we have had with foreign countries for hundreds of years. Anything that will upset the friendly relationship existing between Newfoundland and

Portugal for decades will be a serious thing for Newfoundland. We sell and have sold large quantities of salt fish to Portugal. Although we want to be in a position to bargain with them, we do not want to be in the position of dictating to them.
If the regulations to be made as a result of the passage of this legislation are used in a dictatorial manner, they will be detrimental to the relations which have always existed between Portugal and Newfoundland. And what applies to Portugal applies also to Spain and possibly to Italy.
At the present time a situation is developing on the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland pointing to depletion. As some hon. members will know, the Grand Banks have been the breeding ground for countless millions of fish for decades. It is the feed brought up by the gulf stream and deposited on these banks which feeds the fish and nurtures them. From that breeding ground countless millions of fish come to the shores of Newfoundland year after year.
There is now evidence that depletion is taking place in certain areas of the Grand Banks, and if this continues it will certainly affect shore fishing in Newfoundland. We need some protection there. The only way I can see to bring this about is by international agreement with those countries which use large draggers and up-to-date modern trawlers which are coming in increasing numbers to Newfoundland waters, and fishing in our waters, or off the coast of Newfoundland, year after year.
Anyone who will go to St. John's in the summer can see them by the dozen, running up to a tonnage of about 2,000 tons. They can catch, cure and store huge tonnages of fish-and they have been doing it. We do need protection, so far as the Grand Banks are concerned, or depletion will take place in that area as it has taken place off the coast of Nova Scotia, and the coast of New England in the United States.
If our regulations are made so as to give us bargaining power whereby we can make agreements with those foreign countries which fish in our waters, then I am all for them. But if we use those regulations as a means to dictate to other countries what they shall do, then I say we are in danger of upsetting the friendly relationships we have had with those countries for many years.
It is the policy of Portugal to be selfsupporting in its supply of fish. Because of intensive fishing by the Portuguese they do not need such great quantities of fish from Newfoundland. We may have a point in the 68108-95i
Coastal Fisheries
regulations whereby we can induce them to increase their purchases from us by giving them certain concessions in connection with getting supplies, and fishing in Newfoundland waters.
As I see it, the bill is all right; but what will come from the bill, and what regulations will be used to make our position as a fish-producing and exporting country better than it has been, is what is really important.
Then, making reference to territorial waters, or the three-mile limit, it is possible tbat some hon. members may not know this demarcation was brought about by the international court at The Hague many years ago because of action taken by the then government of Newfoundland. However, I shall not discuss that in detail at this time.
I find upon reading the bill that it gives power to designate what shall be coastal waters. What do you mean by that? Are you going to make it twelve miles or twenty miles? Are you going to stick to the three-mile limit? Internationally, three miles is the recognized limit. We have had no answer to that question and perhaps we will get it in committee.
This bill and the regulations which will follow will have far-reaching effects on the fisheries of Canada, particularly those of the province of Newfoundland. I do hope that when it is before the committee it will be given the closest scrutiny so that we will have legislation which will be worthy, not only of the province of Newfoundland but of the whole of Canada. I think it is time that we had such legislation, but it must be scrutinized from all angles so that no province in this great country will be penalized by what we do here.
I listened with considerable attention to the parliamentary assistant and I realize that there are many points that need to be clarified. If he can clarify them to my satisfaction I shall be very happy. The people in Newfoundland are viewing this bill with some concern and they are taking it quite seriously. They will want to know what regulations are contemplated under the powers granted by this bill.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations I should like to make with regard to this bill and in making them I shall not labour points that have been raised already. As I understand it, this bill seeks to extend the territorial water which may be designated for the purposes of the act. I think that is a most important point. Our coast line, especially on the Atlantic, is most irregular and if our territorial waters

Coastal Fisheries
are to be interpreted as being within three miles from land, foreign vessels would still be permitted to enter many of our bays and waters which we look upon as being territorial waters. It seems to me most important that action should be taken to extend our territorial waters for the purposes of this bill as far as international law will permit so that our coastal fisheries may be protected in the way intended by the bill.
A second point comes to my mind which may have been provided for already. I refer to deep-sea sports fishing. I do not see any mention of that in the bill and I am wondering if restrictions will be placed upon this type of fishing, which is most important to certain parts of the maritimes where tourists from many countries come to do deep-sea fishing, particularly tuna fishing, out of the smaller fishing ports along the coast.
The third point that comes to my mind is in connection with the operation of Canadian fishing vessels by foreign interests. I am not legally trained, but as far as I can see the decision as to who may or may not fish within our territorial waters will be made upon the -basis of the ownership of the vessel involved. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a provision of that kind could be got around by some foreign interests leasing a Canadian registered vessel which could be operated within our territorial waters for their own interests, the fish being taken to their own country. Those are my main points.
With the indulgence of the house I should like to mention in passing one other matter which has some relation to this subject. Recently there has been considerable publicity in the press to the effect that the U.S.S.R. has been quite worried over, the fact that a small island in the maritimes has been purchased by fishing sportsmen from south of the international boundary. The U.S.S.R. seems to be worried that the poor fishermen on that island are having their rights taken away. Perhaps the minister could put them straight by indicating that none of the sovereign rights of this country has been forfeited to any capitalist from any other country.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a moment to express appreciation, on the part of the fishing interests in my constituency, of this particular bill. When it first came up in the Senate some seven weeks ago it received a certain amount of publicity in the newspapers. During the Christmas recess several people who are interested in the fishing business in Yarmouth and Digby counties

spoke to me about this bill and indicated that they thought it was good legislation. They thought it timely that a bill which had been passed eighty-five years ago and had not been amended in the last forty years should be amended and clarified. In fact, several of them spoke to me to this effect: During the last three or four years it would appear from reading Hansard and the newspapers that there is more interest on the part of members of the house in our fisheries and the problems facing this industry than there has been at any time during our lifetime.
It certainly did my heart good to realize just what interest has been shown in the last three or four years, and progressively during each of those years, and that that should be realized by the people of those constituencies which are keenly interested in the fishing industry.
There is one particular part of this bill- Mr. Speaker, I shall be careful not to refer to the sections-which is of great interest to the people living along the Digby Neck and on the islands in Digby county. For a number of years they have been worried over the fact that United States draggers are fishing along that coast. I have referred to this time and time again in the house and have had innumerable interviews with the Department of Fisheries. I know that the department is keenly aware of the problems involved. One of the chief difficulties is indicated by the claim made by the fishermen living along that shore that, after daylight, that is during the hours of darkness, these foreign fishing vessels fish within the three-mile limit.
We all know how difficult it is to decide just where the three-mile line is off the shore. But these fishermen know the coast quite well. It is frequently said of them that they can be out on the water completely surrounded by fog, not being able to see land at all, and by looking over the side can tell exactly where they are because they have a mental picture of the type of bottom under the water. I think that is true of many of these fishermen who fish these waters.
They are worried over the fact that these foreign draggers may be coming within the three-mile limit. The Department of Fisheries is attempting to patrol these waters and I believe they will continue to do so. I suggest that the patrol vessels be sent in during the hours of darkness. I believe that the provisions of this act covering penalties for infractions of the regulations, providing for seizure, confiscation and detention, will have a salutary effect upon those who it is claimed

are now fishing within the three-mile limit and disobeying the international laws in that regard.
The hon. member lor Prince Edward Island has just referred to articles in the Soviet press indicating worry in connection with what is happening on Outer Baldonia, a small island in my constituency which is perhaps only four or five times the size of this chamber. Their concern is received with great amusement by the people of this country, and certainly by the people of that area. For his own edification and that of the hon. members of the house, may I say that no one lives on the island. It is an island not far from the famous Soldier's Rip where fishermen of several countries go to engage in the sport of fishing for the huge tuna. No fishermen live on the island but a few sportsmen go there $or a few days each year. They have had a great deal of fun in the setting up of this mythical kingdom of Outer Baldonia. I think we have succeeded in giving the press of a certain totalitarian country a certain amount of amusement. They may not think it is amusement but it certainly is to the free world. I do not think it does any harm to Outer Baldonia or to the constituency of Digby-Yarmouth to have a little free publicity, and along with the good points in this bill I think it will be of benefit to the constituency and to the fishing industry of the area.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, those who have taken part in the debate this afternoon have all represented constituencies on the Atlantic seaboard. This bill, though possibly designed largely to meet conditions on the Atlantic coast, will also apply to the Pacific coast. Therefore I feel it is only right that I should say a few words with respect to the application of the bill to the Pacific coast, particularly as it will be a long time before we will have an opportunity to discuss it in committee of the whole inasmuch as I understand it is to be referred to a special committee. No great help will be given to the fisheries industry of the Pacific coast unless Canada defines quite clearly her territorial responsibility over the waters adjacent to the coast.
At the present time there is no clear-cut definition even of the so-called three-mile limit. Up to a few years ago the line from which the three-mile limit extended was taken by general international agreement to be from the low-water mark which follows the various indentations of the coast line. I think it was in December a year ago that the Norwegian government appealed to the international court respecting the definition of their territorial waters and particularly how
Coastal Fisheries
the base line should be drawn along their coast. As a result of the Norwegian claim a number of points were selected along the coast line. Sometimes these were on the coast, sometimes on islands, and sometimes even on rocks at a considerable distance from the mainland of Norway. These points were then connected by straight lines running from point to point and by the use of these straight lines the waters claimed to be territorial waters of Norway were designated.
On the Pacific coast the strait of Juan de Fuca separates the southern portion of Vancouver island from the state of Washington. Under an international agreement a straight line was drawn down the centre of that strait. When you clear cape Flattery, a point in the northwest section of the' state of Washington, the description of the territorial waters then ceases. But a practically straight line can be drawn from a few miles to the west of Victoria, certainly from the entrance of the strait of Juan de Fuca, which would run in a northwesterly direction clearing the headlands of the west coast of Vancouver island, clearing Queen Charlotte islands and joining with the international boundary line in Dixon strait.
The advantage of a clear definition of territorial waters by a very nearly straight line is that it would be possible for protective craft to recognize if there were foreign vessels poaching in those waters. Fisheries protective craft would be able to see that the regulations imposed by Canada were being carried out in these clearly defined waters. Unless it is possible to define our territorial waters clearly, it will not be possible to establish full jurisdiction over them, and until we can establish jurisdiction over these waters, which are frequently inhabited by fish that we harvest at various times, it will be impossible to provide adequate protection for our fishing industry.
There are two great areas of inland water which are excluded from being considered as territorial waters if the three-mile limit following the indentations of the mainland coast of British Columbia is accepted. These are of course Queen Charlotte sound and Hecate strait. A very high percentage of the fish harvested on the Pacific coast frequent these two bodies of water at one time or another. I consider that it is imperative that these waters should be included and designated as Canadian territorial waters. We must have jurisdiction over them if we ever hope to provide adequate protection for the fishing industry of British Columbia. At least 50 per cent of the salmon caught for canning purposes are caught beyond the so-called three-mile limit. Fish which are beyond territorial waters are fair game for the fishing

Coastal Fisheries
vessels of any country. Therefore I feel that the first thing which must be done is to define our territorial waters, the waters over which we can and will exercise jurisdiction. Otherwise we cannot begin to offer protection to our fishing industry.
There is one other point I would like to refer to in this bill. There must be adequate means for enforcing the regulations which are made. This bill indicates steps which will be taken when vessels are seized for infractions of the rules and it is noticeable that there are different regulations for seizure and forfeiture of foreign vessels on the Atlantic coast than exist on the Pacific coast. I suggest that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. If vessels from European countries are being seized for infractions of the regulations on the Atlantic seaboard, and are being tried by Canadian courts, then surely the same sort of provision should exist for foreign vessels infringing on the regulations covering Canadian territorial waters on the Pacific coast. If those vessels are seized, their captains and masters should also be tried in Canadian courts instead of being handed over to a foreign country for trial. I feel that the provisions which exist on the Atlantic coast should be applicable on the Pacific coast.
I will finish by once more emphasizing the fact that unless our territorial waters on the Pacific coast are clearly defined no real protection can be given to our fishing industry. Clear definition of those territorial waters must be made from a more or less straight base line. The best and in fact the only line which can be acceptable to the fishing industry of British Columbia is a line which includes as territorial waters those great fishing grounds of Queen Charlotte sound and Hecate strait. It is a simple process to draw a straight line on the western shores of Vancouver island to Queen Charlotte island. I am not sure whether it is necessary to go as far into the ocean as the edge of the continental shelf but it is essential that a clearly defined line be drawn on the west coast of those islands.
Such a line could not interfere with any international shipping because international shipping coming from Asia would be clear of those territorial waters until it entered the strait of Juan de Fuca. Ocean liners crossing the Pacific are still considerably west of the continental shelf as it runs north from the strait of Juan de Fuca paralleling Vancouver island on the west coast.
I hope that most careful consideration will be given to this bill when it goes before the
[Mr. Pearkes.l
standing committee to ensure that full protection is given to the fishermen of British Columbia by defining these territorial waters and by making them include grounds which our fish frequent and where so much effort, time and money has been spent in conserving different species. I also hope that consideration will be given to having the same means of enforcing the regulations applicable on both east and west coasts of this country.


Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say very much on this particular bill but I do agree with those who say there is a muddle so far as our territorial waters jurisdiction is concerned. I think the time has arrived-it arrived some time ago-when there should be some sort of international convention at least between the United States and Canada regarding jurisdictional limits of the two countries.
I do not like to take up time with particular cases in matters of this kind but I do suggest that, as far as the island of Cape Breton is concerned, we have very poor protective service for our territorial waters. In November, I think it was, three unfortunate fishermen at Petite de Grat, which happens to be in my constituency, lost trawls to the value of some $700. They were wise enough, intelligent enough and observant enough to get the name of one of the American vessels that was there. They made their complaint, as I think they should have done, to the officers in Halifax, and I have no doubt that those officers took the matter up here. Nothing was done about it. I wrote to the department the other day, and I must say that as far as the officials are concerned, in Ottawa and perhaps everywhere, the department is splendidly managed. In my letter I pointed out that these were poor people, that they had small boats-small trawls-and I got an answer to the letter to the effect that the fishing protective boat went out and looked at the situation. It appeared as if the American trawler which had destroyed their nets was within the three-mile limit but the government boat was not sufficiently equipped to indicate, by cross bearings, exactly where the trawlers were. The department said they had another case at Yarmouth, and I think it was the case brought by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk). They said that they had asked the Department of External Affairs to warn the United States vessels to keep off our shores.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is good enough. I think there should be some way of reimbursing these people. They have the name of that vessel and there

should be some way of reimbursing these poor fishermen without their having to go to the necessity of bringing an action. As a matter of fact, they are not able to do that because of their financial situation.
I have been looking over this bill and I do not know exactly what the department proposes in matters of this kind. Section 6, of course, says:
Whenever a protection officer suspects on reasonable grounds that an offence against this act has been committed, he may seize
(a) any fishing vessel-
And so forth. That is all very well when the protective vessel finds the offending vessel within the three-mile limit; but what is going to happen when the vessel goes in there, does damage to these poor fishermen, and then leaves the jurisdiction of Canada? I think something should be done about that.
I am not finding fault with the officials of the Department of Fisheries, but I do rather find fault with the gentleman who wrote me that letter. I wrote back to him and asked him what was the good of having protective vessels on our coast if they were not sufficiently equipped to be able to indicate where the three-mile limit ends or begins. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister and I hope something will be done to alleviate the difficulties of these particular men I speak about.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not finding fault at all with the departmental officers in Ottawa or anywhere else, but I do believe they should at least take a little more interest in such matters as I have brought before this house. I do not know what they have done in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth. I understand that the burden is being put on the people who lost their equipment to bring action against the vessel that destroyed the equipment. Well, I do not think that is good enough, either. I believe there should be some other way of reimbursing people whose equipment, trawls, nets, and so on, have been destroyed by United States trawlers.


Howard Charles Green: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is described in the explanatory note as one to replace the present Customs and Fisheries Protection Act. For the first time we have the word "coastal" appearing in the title of the bill. It is to be known as the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. It is described as an act to protect the coastal fisheries. Now, those words "coastal fisheries" are not defined in the act, but there is a reference to Canadian territorial waters. I suggest to Your Honour that the foundation for the whole bill is the
Coastal Fisheries
definition of Canadian territorial waters. If the definition is not clear, then there is great uncertainty about the whole bill.
It does seem to me that the most important question to be considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries is this question of what are Canadian territorial waters. It is quite appropriate that that should be decided by the marine and fisheries committee, because "territorial waters" involves our fisheries more than any other activity in the country. I cannot quote from the bill itself, but if hon. members will refer to the interpretation section they will find that there is nothing definite there about this question of Canadian territorial waters. I believe that the only conclusion anyone could reach, if the bill remains as drawn, is that the three-mile limit is to be the test. I do not believe that is satisfactory in the year 1953.
During consideration last year of the draft international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, this same committee considered the problem of Canadian territorial waters. The question gave the committee some difficulty, and I notice that in the report tabled on June 10, 1952, there was a reference to that question in these words:
Your committee was also aware of the great importance of further extending improved international co-operation and good will so that in the near future such matters as the territorial waters' limits, after thorough study and investigation, may be resolved.
I urge that the committee go into this question thoroughly in its sittings during the present session.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has outlined very clearly our wishes concerning the territorial waters of the Pacific coast. We believe that the line should be drawn in such a manner that the water between Vancouver island and the Queen Charlotte islands, which is known as Queen Charlotte sound, and the strait between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia which is called Hecate strait, should be declared by Canada to be Canadian territorial waters.
I do not believe we are likely to make much progress in meeting this question of what are and what are not territorial waters unless this committee on marine and fisheries takes the lead. I hope that will be the course followed in the committee during this session.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. May I remind hon. members that if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacNaught) speaks now he will close the debate.

Coastal Fisheries


John Watson MacNaught: wish to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. Their remarks have been very helpful, and will no doubt be useful to the standing committee on marine and fisheries when it considers the bill section by section. Most of the members who took part in this debate agreed that the matters brought up by them were largely matters that could be dealt with only when the bill was referred to the committee.
At this time I wish to state that the minister would have liked to have been able to remain in the house during this debate. Unfortunately, he had to leave to catch a plane. It was remarkable that he had to leave during the remarks by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), because the plane he was going to catch was one which would take him down to the hon. member's province. I am sure the hon. member will understand the necessity for the minister leaving the chamber while he was speaking.
The hon. member for St. John's West asked that certain policies be defined at this time. I am sure that he will agree that that is not possible. Circumstances will vary from time to time, and it is for that reason the bill is drafted in such a manner that it permits the governor in council to grant permits for foreign fishing vessels to enter our ports. Therefore the hon. member will understand that it is impossible for me to state now what the policy of the government will be under changed circumstances that are bound to arise over the years.
I want to assure the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) that the technical point he raised will be given every consideration by our legal officers. If they have merit, then amendments will be suggested accordingly.


William Joseph Browne: Before the parliamentary assistant resumes his seat, is he in a position to answer the question I asked him as to whether there are any countries which, by treaty, have rights on our coast now? Can lie tell me when the act is to come into effect, when it is given the royal assent, or at some future date?


John Watson MacNaught: My understanding is that a bill of this nature comes into effect when it receives the royal assent. On the other question asked, I am afraid that any answer I might give would not have a great deal of value. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, there are no countries which have
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson).]
rights on our coasts by treaty with the exception of the United States.


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


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure, such grants not to exceed thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the projects and to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the above-mentioned purposes; and to provide that all officers, clerks and employees required for carrying out the provisions of the measure shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: Hon. members will recall
that the federal government has extended financial assistance in the past to various projects of a major character which were designed to conserve the water resources of an area and which also were of benefit in reducing the hazard of serious floods. Among these was the Shand dam in the Grand river watershed in Ontario, where federal government participation through the Department of Public Works from 1939 to 1942 was part of the over-all program designed in part to assist provincial governments in relieving unemployment. In 1950-51 assistance was also extended in the case of the Luther marsh dam, through the Department of Public Works. This dam, also in the Grand river watershed, was regarded as a necessary adjunct to the Shand dam.
In 1951-52, through the engineering and water resources branch of the Department of Resources and Development, the federal government participated in the cost of constructing the Fanshawe dam on the Thames river north of London, and through this department we have also informed the government of Ontario that the federal government will similarly participate in the proposed Glen Allan dam on the Conestoga river. These projects were all considered on their merits. They were regarded as special cases to which federal assistance, on behalf of all the taxpayers of Canada, could reasonably be given because of their nature and magnitude.

The bill referred to in this resolution seeks authority to provide a legislative basis for federal assistance for water conservation projects of a major character across Canada. The projects which would receive assistance under the bill would be, in general, of a similar type to those I have already mentioned, and federal government participation would be considered only upon an appropriate request from the provincial government concerned.
It should be emphasized that the conservation of natural resources within ithe provinces is primarily a provincial responsibility, and that this proposed bill does not in any way seek to establish any change in jurisdiction or responsibility. The federal government would have no proprietary interest in works towards which it might contribute.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the outline given by the minister indicates to the house a general conception as to the nature of the assistance to be given under the terms of a bill, the resolution preceding which has just been read by you, sir. The minister went on to explain that it provides for federal assistance to water conservation projects of a major nature and of a general similarity to those to which he made reference. I feel that this is a most important resolution for this country. Apparently within its ambit will come all those water conservation plans for which the provinces will be responsible and to which the federal authority will give assistance because they have federal or national potentialities. Naturally that brings one to a general discussion of the very important subject of water conservation.
All of us will remember, Mr. Speaker, that some years ago we in the province of Saskatchewan were pressing particularly for consideration of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. The stand taken by the government, through the Minister of Agriculture, was that in so far as the dam and its construction were concerned they could be considered as a matter of national importance, but the responsibility for irrigation and for providing the facilities for irrigation rested primarily upon the province. The minister has borne out that point of view by his short remarks in introducing the resolution. The only change in attitude that I can see as between that enunciated some years ago by the Minister of Agriculture and that comprised within the terms of this resolution is that in connection with water conservation projects the dominion will now provide thirty-seven per cent of the cost of designated projects.
Water Resources
Since the minister has pointed out some of the projects to which this would apply I naturally conclude that it also covers irrigation from a water project that will assist agriculture particularly.


Robert Henry Winters: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill which is forecast by this resolution does not embrace irrigation projects or irrigation policy. It is designed to further projects of a nature I outlined, and limits its scope to water conservation and those aspects of forest conservation in the watershed area which are an integral part of any water conservation program. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will not lead us into' a discussion of a project such as that envisaged by the South Saskatchewan development. I think that could more properly be discussed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act item in the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, at a time when he is in the house to discuss it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the applause from the government benches for the argument advanced. I am going to suggest that this resolution should include irrigation as a necessary water project for this country. Whether or not it is included I wish to bring before the house and the country the need of a resolution such as this to be of assistance to irrigation generally throughout the dominion.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not in this one.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the minister is not going to take the stand that we are to be confined to whatever he defines at the moment as the ambit of the resolution, and be denied the opportunity of presenting the point of view of people generally, and in particular those in the province of Saskatchewan, that such a resolution as this will be either effective or ineffective depending on whether or not water conservation is to include this most important branch, namely irrigation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has risen on a point of order, and he has indicated both in his opening remarks and in the remarks in support of his point of order that this resolution deals with assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure.
The measure which will follow the adoption of this resolution will further identify the projects. The minister has given a general picture of the type of projects to be considered. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) cannot go beyond

Water Resources
the scope of the resolution now before the house. I do not suppose at this stage I should invoke a ruling which was made earlier by Mr. Speaker, but hon. members will recall that a discussion took place -I think it was this session, or perhaps a previous session-as to whether or not a resolution such as this is even debatable. It is debatable, but the debate should address itself to the negative of the motion, which is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Hon. members will recall that Mr. Speaker asked the co-operation of hon. members at that time. I am not going to apply that ruling, but I will tell the hon. member that in the discussion of the resolution, he cannot go beyond the type of projects which have been identified by the minister in his opening remarks.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order and point out that the ruling by His Honour the Speaker last year was made on June 18, 1952, and is found at page 3375 of Hansard. If hon. members will recall, there was a quite protracted debate on the point of order, which had taken place on several days.
The question as stated was whether or not there could be a debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair. It had nothing whatever to do with the debate that took place after Mr. Speaker left the chair. It was purely a matter of opening up that debate; and the ruling was as follows:
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.
The minister did not raise the point that there should be no debate in this case. The minister rose in his place and made his statement. And, having done so, I submit that any hon. member is free to get up and point out his objection to the resolution, and to make a speech such as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been doing.
The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure-

And so on. Surely I am entitled to get up and say that I believe this measure should be broad enough to include a scheme for British Columbia, for instance, and that we are not to be met with a ruling by Your Honour that the minister can say that the bill when it comes in will not have anything in it referring to British Columbia, and that therefore the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra cannot say anything about such a scheme.
A ruling of that kind by Your Honour, I submit, would restrict the debate entirely out of all reason. And I submit the hon. member for Lake Centre is within his rights in discussing conservation measures on the South Saskatchewan river which he believes should be undertaken under this plan.
One reason we should be allowed to do it is that we always have hope that, as a result of representations we make to the government, the bill may be changed; that provision may be made to meet our suggestions. But if we are to be met in every case with the statement by the minister, "Your suggestion has not any value, and therefore you must keep still," surely that ruins the whole efficacy of debate at this stage.
I submit the hon. member for Lake Centre is perfectly in order in making his suggestion with regard to water conservation on the South Saskatchewan river.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I did not think the question would be brought up at this time. However, I recall the discussion that took place when it was brought up by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the ruling given by Mr. Speaker. At that time we had a committee, as we have right now, to consider the procedure of the house. At this session we did not think any member would take the position that we should reverse what was done at the last session.
Forgetting for the moment that you are a lawyer, it will be noted that the motion is that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, and that he leave the chair for some purpose. That purpose is to consider-what? It is to consider a resolution. The actual motion is not to consider the resolution; it is that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, and that the committee consider the resolution.
For anyone who is not a lawyer this is the simplest language I can use.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is being the lawyer now?


Alphonse Fournier: I am speaking like an ordinary member of parliament, and I think anyone who is listening will understand my simple language. I will put the question to

the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green): When I move that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What for?


Alphonse Fournier: To go into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What for?


Alphonse Fournier: -so that the committee-and you are just completing my sentences-so that the committee may consider certain proposals in the resolution, the motion is not that the house should consider the resolution at this time, but rather that the committee of the whole house should consider it. When I say this I am not being technical in the use of either the English or the French language. It is just so the ordinary man and woman in the country will understand what I am saying.
You gentlemen say: "Oh, no; you have a resolution on the order paper which reads- so and so. We are bound to have that discussion while Mr. Speaker is in the chair." That is your point of view. Why do you want the discussion at this time? Let the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair be put now, and in a minute the hon. member for Lake Centre will want to be on his feet. He can make all the statements he wishes to make, so long as they are relevant to the resolution. And, in committee, if what he says is not relevant, Mr. Chairman will call him to order, because he is familiar with the procedure.
But why all this argument, that you wish to have Mr. Speaker in the chair to consider something that is not before him? There is no resolution or motion before the chair right now, except the one that he do leave the chair to consider something?


Howard Charles Green: What is he to consider?


Alphonse Fournier: The resolution; but not with Mr. Speaker in the chair. The chairman, in committee of the whole, is to consider it. That is all we are doing. If we asked to consider the resolution while Mr. Speaker was in the chair, probably we would use that language. But we are not using it. And we would have to change the rule to permit debate at this stage on the resolution, because it is not before Mr. Speaker at all.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask-


Alphonse Fournier: Would you be patient enough to let me conclude? Perhaps if I were in the opposition I might argue something like the hon. member is doing. What you gentlemen want is a discussion, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, of the whole field of water conservation. If you have some 68108-96J
Water Resources
pet project or something in mind, that is what you want to discuss. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just mentioned that he wants to speak about the South Saskatchewan development; he wants to speak about irrigation; he wants to speak about power development.


John George Diefenbaker: That is misinterpreting what I want to discuss. The South Saskatchewan irrigation project is something that should be discussed under this resolution, and that is what the minister is trying to prevent my doing.


Alphonse Fournier: We agree. That is what I am saying, that the hon. gentleman wants to discuss the South Saskatchewan irrigation and power development.


John George Diefenbaker: Not power development; irrigation and water conservation.


Alphonse Fournier: All right, irrigation if you will. If I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell me what the motion is I know you will say:	"It is moved by the Minister of
Resources and Development that I do now leave the chair."


Howard Charles Green: To consider such and such.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker will not consider it; it will be the committee of the whole with the chairman presiding. You do not consider this with Mr. Speaker in the chair. I understand that what you want to do is to discuss with Mr. Speaker in the chair something that is not before the chair, and then you want to repeat that same discussion in committee of the whole.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not making the decision as to what we want to do.


Alphonse Fournier: I have seen so many of your decisions in the past that I can read your mind clearly right now. I am sure you will not contradict this statement.


Howard Charles Green: I will contradict you right now.


Alphonse Fournier: Parliamentary procedure under our standing orders say that there should not be redundancy and repetition. This is not a Sunday school or a school, it is a parliament. I think it should satisfy any member of parliament to discuss and debate a matter at length at the right stage of the procedure. I am not going to take up too much time, as perhaps hon. members would be through with their debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Would it be proper in committee of the whole to discuss the South Saskatchewan river dam?


Alphonse Fournier: When we get to that bridge we will not burn it, we will try to

Water Resources
cross it or not cross it. When we are in committee of the whole will be the time to take up that question. The committee on procedure discussed this problem at length, although I know that opinions were divided. If you want to follow the standing orders as they are now I do not think you can debate the merits of the resolution at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the debate goes any further perhaps I may be allowed to say a word arising out of the remarks made a moment ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). He referred to a ruling that I had mentioned earlier which was made by Mr. Speaker and which appears in Votes and Proceedings of June 18, 1952. The point as to whether or not a debate should take place with Mr. Speaker in the chair is not at issue, because debate has taken place. The Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) has not made a point of it. He made a statement and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose and was delivering a speech when he was interrupted by the minister rising on a point of order. His point of order was as to the extent to which debate would be allowed on this resolution. That is the second point which was covered by Mr. Speaker's ruling of June 18, 1952, and I quote from page 534 of Votes and Proceedings as follows:
The question on which there is some difference of opinion is the extent to which debate is to be allowed. This question was considered by Mr. Speaker Glen on the 23rd February, 1942 (Hansard p. 800). At that time he ruled that the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion and should be general with no reference to details.
This is the point at issue at the moment. The motion before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair; and according to Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling and Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling of June 18, 1952, the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion, that is, that I should not leave the chair for the house to consider the advisability of making the expenditures contemplated by the resolution and by the measure which is to follow the resolution.
Now, what is the limitation that the Speaker should apply when this point is raised as to the extent to which debate is to be allowed? The debate should be directed to the negative. The minister has said that the measure which will follow this resolution will deal with, and he mentioned one, two, three, four, five dam projects. I do not recall the names of the projects that he mentioned, but I was listening carefully when he was mentioning them. The resolution which is before us provides for various grants of

assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure.
This is where the limitation on debate is to be found, as I understand it. I do not want to bar hon. members from discussing projects they would like to discuss, but I am bound by the rules. As I understand the situation and as it has been explained, I must ask the hon. member not to go beyond the scope of the projects which are contemplated here and to direct his remarks to the negative of the motion which is that I do now leave the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that that ruling might be correct if the resolution had referred to the five dam projects, but it does not do that at all. It refers in general to the conservation of water resources. Your Honour is now ruling on the basis that the minister can get up and virtually say that this resolution is to cover only the five projects. Surely that is not right. Since in the course of this debate we still will have to decide whether or not we believe Your Honour should leave the chair, we are entitled to have a debate on the resolution in order that we may know whether or not we believe it is right that you should leave the chair. It may be that the resolution is too restricted and for that reason we might be well advised to vote against it; but to cut off debate or restrict debate in this way by allowing the minister to get up and say that the bill is going to refer to certain projects only and therefore we can discuss those particular projects only, I submit is not within reason. For example, I have here a report of the minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. member to say that what he has just said has convinced me more than anything else that whoever advocates that no debate should take place at this stage is right. If the hon. member will read the Speaker's ruling, to which he referred a moment ago, he will see that it was as follows:
At that time he ruled that the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion and should be general with no reference to details.


Howard Charles Green: That was overruled.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will look at the rule he will see that in a money resolution no reference is made to the details of the measure which is to come later. In other words, a resolution which precedes a money bill is one which indicates only briefly what the measure is going to be. The resolution provides an opportunity for hon. members to decide whether it is advisable for

the Speaker to leave the chair to consider the resolution, that is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are a few words that I would like to say on the point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will consider this further but I doubt whether I will change my opinion. As it is five o'clock we will now consider private and public bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 6, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act (liability of directors).-Mr. Argue.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since this bill was first drafted certain changes have been made both in the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act, and I am advised that the bill should be drawn in a somewhat different manner. If it is agreeable to the house, I would ask permission to withdraw the bill for the purpose of redrafting it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his bill at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 106, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is one which should have been introduced in the house many years ago. As a very young boy in the province of Ontario I remember witnessing the death of a neighbour at a level crossing. He was a very fine old gentleman with a large family. He was proceeding to town with his team and there was a light snowstorm. The train bore down upon him and he met his death. I suppose since that date twenty others have died at the same crossing. One of the advantages of coming a long distance to attend the House of Commons is that as one travels across Canada one sees very many phases of the life of the country, and the level crossing menace is one which is growing more horrible as the days go by.
At the town of Deroche in British Columbia there is a level crossing, and thirty years ago a whole family of six was killed there. That
Railway Act
was the Macdonald family who were descendants of John Sanidfield Macdonald, a great man in Canada at the time of confederation and before. The mother and her family of six were wiped out at that crossing, and every year since fatal accidents have been occurring at the level crossing at Deroche. It is all right to give a great deal of attention to the raising of freight rates and the salaries of the employees of the railways. These are very necessary things, and as important matters they must be dealt with. But it is equally important that we should give more attention to the protection of the lives of the people of Canada so far as level crossings are concerned. I believe there is a field there where the leaders of the labour unions should take a very active part in arousing public opinion.
I have a letter here from a mother whose little girl was killed at a level crossing in Ontario at a point near Woodstock. If I were to read it to the house it would bring tears to the eyes of all present, especially those who have children of their own. It is a crossing which is not properly protected. I have noticed that boards of trade and other public-spirited groups across the country have erected crosses at level crossings to mark where fatal accidents have occurred.
I was in the county of Perth the other day and while there had occasion to notice a particular crossing near the residence of the member for that beautiful constituency. We got over it safely, but it is a very dangerous crossing. It is elevated high above the level of the surrounding countryside. I am enough of an engineer to believe that the cost of putting a subway under the track would be less than it cost to provide the earth fill necessary to raise the pavement up to the level of the track.
I have made some inquiries as to the number of fatal accidents in Canada last year, and I find that in the first ten months of 1952 the total number of people injured at level crossings was 453. Of this number 166 were killed and the total number of accidents was 357. Some of those involved died and some were crippled for life. That was the harvest in the first ten months of 1952. at level crossings throughout Canada.
I am eager to assist the construction of better transportation facilities in every way, and I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) works day and night towards the same end. In British Columbia we managed after some years to persuade the government of the province, assisted by the government of Canada, to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway into the northern part of the province. In November of last year

Railway Act
eighty miles of construction were completed and a celebration was held at the city of Prince George to mark the institution of rail service from the south over the P.G.E.
I know that hon. members have heard me refer many times to that railway and the need of extending it farther north, even to Alaska. I think we are all pretty well agreed now that it should be done, and even the Social Credit government of British Columbia has pledged itself to extend the railway. I personally have championed the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern for thirty years or more, and now we have an extension of eighty miles from Quesnel to the crossing of the Fraser river at Prince George. Before they started construction I said: Surely we can avoid level crossings on this splendid new rail line we are opening up in the northern part of British Columbia. Well, they thought they could and then they thought they could not.
I travelled over the line recently, and I believe there are twelve level crossings in the eighty miles. In other words, twelve opportunities are provided to reduce the number of citizens of the Cariboo by fatal accidents at level crossings.
I notice from the estimates that the government spends $1 million a year to eliminate or reduce the hazard of certain level crossings. I know it would be a very big undertaking to remove all level crossings in Canada because there are many thousands of them, but I suggest to the house it would be a very easy matter to pass the bill and start afresh on the problem. We could help to solve the problem by not allowing any more level crossings to be built where new construction is involved. It is just as simple as that.
I doubt if it would add very substantially to the cost of building railways if engineers were instructed to avoid level crossings, and we would establish the principle that to build another death trap, another level crossing, would be a violation of the statute law of this country. We are building highways in the north and west and all over this country. This bill, I hope, will also make unlawful the construction of a new highway over a railway and certainly the construction of a new railway over a highway.
You may say that the age of railways is fast coming to a close, but I think that is far from the truth. We will be building hundreds of miles of railway in Canada long after hon. gentlemen who are listening to me now are out of this house and probably called to their reward; because the very nature of our country will call for the construction of railways.

I would say that the riding which I represent in this house is larger than that part of Ontario which lies south of a line through Sudbury and Port Arthur. Our population, of course, is scattered and there is room in that great area of Canada, in the adjoining riding of Skeena and in the Yukon, for a very large population. I visualize a day when the largest percentage of the people in British Columbia will live north of Prince George. The land is certainly there, with broad valleys and all the natural resources- mineral resources, oil, natural gas and so on. This matter of the construction of railways is very important and of considerable public interest today in my community.
There is a project designed to extend the Northern Alberta Railways westward from Hines Creek into British Columbia and on toward the area I referred to. It is not something that will be done in the dim and distant future. It is something that should be done as quickly as we can do it, because the area is already settled. In one area people are hauling their goods one hundred miles or so to the railway, even one hundred and twenty miles, trying to make a success of farming. They are hauling their goods farther than it is from here to Montreal. I need not say that construction of that bit of road would be sound business. It should be done at once, and when it is done it will be one of the most profitable sections of the Northern Alberta system.
How ridiculous it would be, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with the building of that railway and to build level crossings there so that farmers going to market would be compelled to face the hazard of death and disaster at those level crossings.
As I understand it, the first railway in western Ontario was built 101 years ago. Sir Francis Hincks, a famous man in Upper Canada in those days, was the promoter of that railway. I would like to have a list of the casualties that have occurred at level crossings between Sarnia and Hamilton or between Sarnia and Niagara Falls. The figure would be atrocious. Of course railways are always built on the best and most level property; they are built where the population is dense and by the very nature of things where traffic is greatest.
We have made so much headway in so many lines of endeavour, yet in the simple matter of protecting our people from the hazards of level crossings we remain practically as we were at the time of Sir Francis Hincks. At some crossings there is very little or no protection. At others there are rather expensive warning signals installed. I would

like to see the most modern devices established at each level crossing. The electric eye sort of thing might be brought into play. Down at Windsor station in Montreal the C.P.R. has installed electric beams so that when we go there with our grips our very passing opens the door. Similarly on existing level crossings modern electronics could very easily be employed to make them safer.
This bill which we have before us will ensure that on new construction the menace of level crossings will vanish for all time in Canada. I hope and pray that all hon. members of this house, irrespective of party, will get behind it, get it into committee, and assist in having it put upon the statute books of our country.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have made a short study of the bill which is before us and upon which the hon. gentleman, the member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), has been speaking. Some of the figures I have found may be of interest to the house. In all there are some 32,000 crossings in Canada, of which about 12 per cent are protected by lights or gates of some kind or another. In other words, about 3,840 are protected crossings and about 28,160 are not protected.
The bill envisages the protection of crossings that are to be built in future by making it compulsory for highways to go under or over rail lines, or parallel to them if the former is not possible. Well, Mr. Speaker, our main lines are built already, and there will not be any great change in our crosscountry mode of transportation as far as railways are concerned. In short, the most hazardous crossings already exist and for them this bill does not envisage any protection, but only for those that may be constructed in the future.
So far as the riding of Meadow Lake is concerned, we are interested in the completion of a couple of short lines, and we would be pleased if we could have them completed with regular crossings. However, that is not my main criticism of this bill.
I have looked into the statistics regarding deaths and accidents, and I am quite aware of the toll inflicted on the people of this country. The bill is aimed in a very desirable direction, I agree. However, I do not think it meets the situation, and I would like to read into the record some of the figures I obtained regarding accidents last year. There were in all 357 accidents at level crossings in the first ten months of 1952. I think the -hon. member for Cariboo said that 166 people were killed and 453 were injured. Statistically they do not consider it an acci1-
Railway Act
dent unless there has been an injury or death connected with the occurrence. A breakdown of the figures shows:
Total	Total number	Total numbernumber	of	ofof	people	peopleProvince	accidents	killed	injuredNewfoundland ...	... 3	-	5Prince Edward Island 	... 2	__	3Nova Scotia 	... 11	8	12New Brunswick ..	.. . 14	8	19Quebec 	.. . 70	43	84Ontario 	... 152	70	193Manitoba 	... 19	7	23Saskatchewan 	... 26	14	27Alberta 	... 39	7	62British Columbia	... 21	9	25... * -	- ** *	
-
	357	166	453
(Highway crossing accidents, 10 month period January 1, 1952, to October 31, 1952.)
This is a sorry record, and if the bill introduced by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr Murray) were reworded or had some mori research done on it, I believe it might be o some help. It is aimed in the right direction However, the main thing in connectioi with this matter is that some cognizance ha been taken of the difficulty by this govern ment. On January 14, P.C. 1953/52 was pre sented by the governor general in counci to the board of transport commissioners. I was framed in the following terms: Whereas the railway-highway crossing problen in Canada as a result of expanding motor vehic'i traffic and improved highways has become one o: national concern in respect of the present neec for protection, safety and convenience of the public And whereas it is deemed to be in the publii interest that an inquiry be made into all matter; involved in the problem of railway-highway cross ings which come under the jurisdiction of thi parliament of Canada;
And whereas section 38 of the Railway Act pro vides that the governor in council may at any timi refer to the board of transport commissioners fo: a report, or other action, any question, matter o: thing arising or required to be done under thi Railway Act or any other act of the parliamen of Canada.
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor Genera in Council, on the recommendation of the Ministe: of Transport and under and by virtue of sectioi 38 of the Railway Act, is pleased to direct am doth hereby direct that the Board of Transpor Commissioners for Canada make an investigatioi and report on all phases of the problem of rail way-highway crossings which are under the juris diction of the parliament of Canada in respect o the present and prospective need for the protec tion, safety and convenience of the public, am without limiting the generality of the foregoin the board shall
(a)	conduct a survey and report on the method considered by the board to be practicable unde all pertinent circumstances of eliminating th hazards and improving the public convenience am the protection and safety of the public at sue! crossings;

Railway Act
(b)	review and report on the adequacy of the ailway grade crossing fund to provide for the onstruction of works for the protection, safety nd convenience of the public in respect of railway-highway crossings; and
(c)	make such recommendations as the board lay deem advisable in the premises.
That covers the crossings over which the ;deral government may have some control.
believe there may be some doubt as to whether or not this bill infringes provincial Lghts. In section (2b), the bill says:
Alter the 1st July, 1953, no highway shall be onstructed across a railway unless it be carried ver or under such railway.
Highways are under the jurisdiction of the rovincial governments or municipalities, as le case may be, and very few are under ideral jurisdiction. If this section of the ill were enacted I believe we would be ifringing the rights of the provinces or lunicipalities. It is a well known fact that rhen a railroad seeks to close a crossing the ermission of the municipality or province is jught, thereby recognizing their rights in le matter. As I say, therefore, we may be ifringing provincial or municipal rights in lis bill.
Since P.C. 1953/52, which I read to the ouse, refers this matter to the board of ansport commissioners there may be some uestion as to whether or not we should be iscussing the subject at all. I believe, Mr. peaker, that with the information before 3 we would be well advised to await the itcome of the report which the privy coun-1 has requested of the board of transport immissioners. This board is best equipped i look into the matter and get all the infor-ation upon which a proper bill could be ised, one that would cover us to the ulti-.ate limits that we could be covered.
I hope the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. urray) does not take it that I am opposed i his bill for any other reasons than those hich I have stated. I do feel that we would ; well advised to await the report of the >ard of transport commissioners before tak-g any further action.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: 
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: We are in
sympathy with the purpose which we believe the sponsor had in mind when he had the notice of this bill placed on the order paper. I may say that we are not too certain that this may be the most feasible, the most practicable, method of approach. We shall hear what the minister has to say in that regard. Certainly when one reads the statistics respecting railway crossing tragedies he cannot help but conclude that a responsibility rests upon us here to do whatever can be done in an effort to contribute toward the lowering of the number of these tragedies.
I am convinced that we can, through the removal of a great many of the level crossings, help to reduce the number of accidents that occur. It seems to me that a great deal of emphasis must be laid upon the importance of safety campaigns, and the assumption on the part of individual drivers of a greater share of responsibility than many of them up to this time have indicated they are prepared to accept.
After all, what constitutes a dangerous crossing? Frequently we refer to a crossing as being dangerous if the records show that a certain number of deaths have occurred through accidents at that crossing. But the evidence indicates that, conceivably in a majority of cases, those tragedies have occurred on level, open crossings where in many instances visibility extends a mile in either direction. I fully realize that the removal of as many level crossings as possible

Railway Act
will assist in solving the problem, but certainly we must also make efforts in other directions, perhaps through educational campaigns.
The bill refers to highways, but I think it is important to keep in mind that provincial governments in Canada have recognized the necessity of removing as many level crossings as possible when they have rebuilt or constructed highways. Everywhere in Canada there is evidence to indicate that the provinces are assuming responsibilities in that direction.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) has mentioned the question of jurisdiction. It may prove to be an important point so far as the legality of a bill of this kind is concerned.
As I have said, we certainly support the purpose the sponsor of the bill has in mind. We think it is an absolute tragedy that people will continue to drive into the sides of trains, that in some instances they will pass a line of standing traffic and drive into an approaching train, and this has happened more than once. We know that on occasions they will drive up to a level crossing, stop, and then start across, only to be hit by an approaching train.
It occurs to me that a substantial contribution to a solution will be found in a greater acceptance of responsibility on the part of drivers, through educational and other campaigns that can be carried on. We support the purpose of the bill. However, we would like to hear the minister's views before indicating whether we would or would not support this particular bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are all hoping that the minister will speak to the bill, and indicate the view of the government. However, pending the possibility of his speaking, may I take just a moment to say that we are in sympathy with the purposes of this bill. The difficulties in connection with it are obvious, and have been stated. But our hope is that the fact that there may be difficulties will not result in the house following the course of least resistance and talking the bill out.
It seems to us it would be far better to have the matter referred to some appropriate committee so the question can be fully studied. If there are sections which infringe upon provincial rights and which need to be modified or eliminated, then let us have that matter gone into. If the general direction set out in the bill needs to be modified in any way, let us have that studied as well. I hope, however, that the commendable pur-

pose behind the bill will not be thrown out completely, and that the measure will not be voted down without any further consideration.
I think the minister should know before he makes his speech-and I hope he is going to make it-that it would seem that the house generally is sympathetic with the purposes behind the proposed legislation.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, may I say briefly that I am in sympathy with the principle behind this bill. I realize, however, that in many instances tremendous costs would be involved If we were to try to construct overhead bridges and underpasses at all necessary points in the Dominion of Canada.
Both the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways, as well as the trans-Canada highway, pass through my riding. This means that there are a great many crossings. I am sorry the bill does not mention the installation of wigwags on all county and provincial highways, because I believe to a great extent that would eliminate the trouble. It has been proven that where wigwags have been used the accident problem has been eliminated to a considerable extent. Of course there are always some people who will drive against a wigwag signal and be killed. I think, however, that the system of wigwags could be extended and would overcome much of our difficulty.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be grateful to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) for having introduced the principle of the bill, and for having brought once again to the attention of the house the very serious matters with which it deals. I believe the house is quite familiar with the question, because it has been discussed not only in debates on private bills but in debates on the estimates for the Department of Transport, as well as on other occasions.
One of the most serious problems with which we have to deal today is that of railway-highway grade crossings. It is a subject which has engaged the attention not only of people here in Canada but, before that, of experts and specialists in the United States, where the problem is far more serious than it is here.
I commend the hon. member for his desire to deal with this matter, but I must say to him with all respect that the amendment to the section of the Railway Act which he suggests does not begin to deal seriously with the problem. The government saw fit early

in the year, as was stated by the hon. member for Meadow Lake, to ask the board of transport commissioners to study the whole problem of railway grade crossings. It gave the board full power, as set out in order in council P.C. 1953/52, to make a complete and thorough investigation and study. I think it would be no compliment to the board of transport commissioners if at this stage the house were to say to it that it should do as set out in the bill.
Then there are several objections to the bill. The first I see is that it makes the implementation of this section mandatory upon the board. In other words the board would be obliged to force the railways to construct a grade separation after July 1, 1953, upon any application that was made. As it is today, the board has that power under the act. It is a discretion it has, and that discretion should not be taken away; because if it were taken away there would be no way of determining which crossing should have priority because of density of traffic or density of population or because of location.
With the section the way it is worded now I can see a situation where in an isolated part of Canada, at a place where there was little traffic, a railroad would be forced, perhaps in conjunction with the highway authorities, the municipalities and the like, to spend a large sum of money to separate a grade when there was little or no need for such separation in that particular area. I can think of a railroad building a spur line into an area which might cross a highway where there would be little or no traffic-this happens repeatedly-and the grade crossing fund or even the municipality and the railroad would be charged with the expenditure of a substantial sum of money when the grade separation was not really required.
Another objectionable feature is the mandatory provision. The board now has discretion, and it seems to me that it should continue to have discretion in these cases. I wish I had more time to depl with this matter because if I had I would make reference to a study that has been made of the railway-highway grade crossing problem by A. Kenneth Beggs of the Stanford research institute. This is an excellent document which goes into the problem very thoroughly. It gives the causes of accidents and in a series of excellent theses it proposes solutions to the problem.
The problem is a serious one. If we were to eliminate all grade crossings in Canada the sum of $100 million would barely suffice. If I had the time at my disposal I would
Railway Act
deal with some of the causes responsible for the increase of accidents, and I would deal in part with the solutions suggested.
I think the hon. member is to be complimented upon his attempt to find a solution. In his anxiety to eliminate these accidents he has submitted this amendment to the house. I know the amendment is well-intentioned, but it deals only with a small portion of the problem. In order to deal with the whole problem the government has asked the board of transport commissioners, which because of its statutory powers is able to consider problems of this kind, to make a thorough survey of the railway-highway grade crossing problem in Canada. When the board has made its report it will then be possible to bring down amendments to the Railway Act and perhaps the grade crossing fund. It will be possible to consult the provinces, because I think perhaps one of these sections impinges upon provincial jurisdiction.
I should like to say more on this subject, but it seems to me that I have said enough to indicate to the house that it would not be advisable to accept the bill in its present form. I would hope that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), having succeeded in raising interest in the subject and knowing that the matter is being studied by the board of transport commissioners, would see fit under all these circumstances to withdraw the bill.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, I think some good has been done by ventilating this subject, as the minister has said. Were I a member of the bar, perhaps a leader of the bar as are some of my colleagues, I would have presented a bill which would have met every point raised by the minister. I did my best as a layman. I have brought the bill forward, and I assure you that if I am spared to be returned to this house following the next election I shall bring in another bill. After consulting with eminent legal talent-and I may bring you into it, Mr. Speaker-I shall try to present a bill which will meet with the approval not only of the members of the house but of the government.
I thank the minister for his kindly consideration of this effort, which will be repeated later on. With the consent of hon. gentlemen, I ask that the bill be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Has
the hon. gentleman leave to withdraw the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.

Water Resources


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: The
hour tor private and public bills having expired, at eight o'clock the house will resume the business it was considering at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure, such grants not to exceed thirty-seven and a half per cent of the projects and to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the above mentioned purposes; and to provide that all officers, clerks and employees required for carrying out the provisions of the measure shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Your Honour. Just before five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of a considerable discussion with respect to procedure, and if I may say so it seems to me that a fair amount of confusion was developing due to the fact that two different points were under discussion. I wish to state what these two points are solely for the purpose of separating them. Having done that, I intend to direct my remarks to but one of these points, namely, the one that I feel-and I think Your Honour will agree with me-is important for the purposes of the present situation.
The point of order that was raised in the first instance this afternoon was that raised by the Minister of Resources and Development, who questioned whether any discussion with respect to the South Saskatchewan river project could be entertained under the terms of the resolution now before us. I take it the minister would raise that point of order at any stage with respect to this legislation. I wish to say now that that is the point of order about which I am most concerned. During the discussion that followed the hon. member for Vancouver -Quadra or the Minister of Public Works-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson).]
I do not know which one started it-they often start things together; they are good pals at that-


John George Diefenbaker: And they read each other's mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Lake Centre says, they read each other's mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I might tell the hon. member that the point he has just mentioned is really the only one that concerns me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a correction that certainly should have been made long ago. But even when you have made that correction there is still no reference to the total amount of money to be spent. There is still no reference which limits the kind of project that can be brought in under the general heading, conservation of water resources. It may well be that members of the house might feel-for the moment I am speaking hypothetically rather than in terms of substance -that projects such as that on the South Saskatchewan river should be brought under this heading and should be dealt with under legislation of this kind, and since the resolution does not rule out projects of this kind I do not see how members of the house can be stopped from discussing it, from pleading with the minister, from arguing that he is the minister who should now include within
Water Resources
the framework of this legislation some provision for the development of the South Saskatchewan river project.
We have had this point up before in other ways, but surely it is clear that since the resolution is framed in general terms it is within the competence of members to make proposals that come within those general terms. I submit that is what members are doing when they ask the right in this debate to suggest as one of the means of conserving water resources that something should be done with respect to the South Saskatchewan river project.
I mentioned earlier that the citations to which I referred, citations 439 and 440 in Beauchesne's third edition, had to do with amendments, and of course the amendments referred to are amendments to the bill based on the resolution. Nevertheless a principle is laid down in those references, namely that members can make these suggestions for enlargement of what is involved in the legislation provided they do not go beyond the terms of the resolution when the resolution is worded in general terms.
I submit that if the Minister of Resources and Development did not want a discussion of the South Saskatchewan river project under his resolution he should have worded it more carefully. He should have been more specific. He should have said what it actually meant instead of putting it in these general terms. Having put it in general terms, and having said that this is a resolution having to do with the conservation of water resources, I submit that members should be allowed to discuss the South Saskatchewan river project and should be allowed to urge, if they wish to do so, that consideration be given that project by the government under the terms of this legislation.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the house for one moment. I do not want to repeat myself, but I am in a quandary when I read order No. 9 on the order paper. If the hon. gentlemen will look at the order paper they will see that it states:
December 5-In the committee of the whole-the following proposed resolution:


Mr. Fulton:: I wish to deal with that point.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps I do not understand the English language well enough, but I thought that in the committee of the whole we would consider the following resolution. If it were to be considered while Mr. Speaker is in the chair the minister probably would have stood up and moved that this resolution be considered, but he did not move

Water Resources
that. He moved that the Speaker do now leave the chair so that in committee of the whole-and it is in black and white-the following resolution may be considered.
Perhaps I am all wrong, as I am not one of those lawyers who have practised lately, but I am used to reading sentences and trying to get a meaning and some interpretation of what they mean. Perhaps you will tell me that I am wrong, but I have looked up standing order No. 38 where it is said that nearly every motion is debatable if it appears on the order paper. Well, the motion just moved is not on the order paper. The motion was that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair, and that does not appear on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it should not have been moved at all.


Alphonse Fournier: Why did you not
object at the time? You know the rules.
If we did move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and it does not appear on the order paper, to my mind it is not debatable; but what is debatable, and what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) argued, was that we could amend this resolution. But you cannot amend a motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. You can vote against or make him stand up or sit down, but you cannot amend that resolution.
I see my friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) listening attentively and I am sure he agrees with me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not the issue we are letting the committee on procedure deal with?


Alphonse Fournier: We are trying, not as simply as I argued this afternoon, to see what we can get out of these different sentences. You will never convince a member of parliament that when the order paper says "in the committee of the whole we will consider the following resolution", you are going to turn around and consider it while Mr. Speaker is in the chair. If we changed the resolution and said that we wanted to consider it now, I would understand that you could have a general debate. You will have that debate in two minutes, and you can amend that resolution when we get into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we?


Alphonse Fournier: You can try. Your trial in committee will probably have the same effect as it would with Mr. Speaker in the chair, but I do not think you are doing

it according to the rules of the house now. I am anxious to hear the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


John George Diefenbaker: I just want to make one reference if I may.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not know if the hon. member wishes to speak on the point which was raised a moment ago by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), as to whether debate should take place with Mr. Speaker in the chair. Besides, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated, that is not the issue.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker says it is not the issue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I refer you to the judgment or direction of the Speaker on June 18, 1952, as it appears at page 3375 of Hansard. There Mr. Speaker says:
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion-
It was a matter similar to this.
-that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The minister should endeavour to answer the object-tions which have been raised and to give the information requested.
My submission is that, with respect to the question of the South Saskatchewan river dam or irrigation project, I intend to place before the house, and in particular the minister, some of my objections to the resolution that is going before the committee of the whole; and the only way in which I can do it is to present arguments in support of the contention I wish to advance. On the basis of that ruling my submission, with respect, is that I would be within the rules. Otherwise the minister is in the position of having a resolution indefinite in its scope. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he could actually gag members of the house and prevent them placing before him their objections to the resolution to be considered in the committee of the whole.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a word in regard to this as it appears to me. The resolution reads, and I will quote the first few lines:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure-

I cannot see how you can take one water resource in one province and say that it cannot be discussed under this resolution. The resolution refers to "water resources" in the provinces. The South Saskatchewan river is certainly a water resource, and how can we differentiate between the South Saskatchewan river and the Fraser river or the Columbia river or any other river?
It seems to me that it is amazingly farfetched to say that you can discuss every other water resource in Canada but that you cannot discuss the South Saskatchewan river, which is one of the water resources in the dominion. It is an amazing ruling and I am wondering how it can be made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members, of course, will understand that this point upon which I am called to make a decision is a very difficult one. I would like to thank hon. members for having assisted in the debate on the point of order, and they have provided some very valuable suggestions.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated the point correctly when he said that the decision which must be made is whether or not the South Saskatchewan river project or irrigation project is to be discussed on this resolution; whether it is proper or relevant to discuss those projects on this resolution. While the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) rose on a point of order. He said that the bill forecast by the resolution did not embrace irrigation projects or irrigation policy. He contended, therefore, that the hon. member for Lake Centre was out of order in discussing the South Saskatchewan river or irrigation project.
I would refer hon. members to a ruling of Mr. Speaker which appears in Votes and Proceedings of June 18, 1952, in which he said:
All hon. members who have taken part in the discussions agree that the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a resolution preceding a money bill is debatable. In my opinion that is the correct view so long as subclause (a) of standing order No. 38 remains in its present form.
As I said a moment ago, that point is not at issue in this case. Mr. Speaker continues:
The question on which there is some difference of opinion is the extent to which debate is to be allowed. This question was considered by Mr. Speaker Glen on the 23rd of February, 1942. At that time he ruled that the debate should be directed to the negative of the motion and should be general with no reference to details.
My problem seems to be to decide if the debate on this resolution should be extended to
Water Resources
the South Saskatchewan river irrigation project. The minister declared that this resolution, and I use his words, "does not embrace irrigation projects or irrigation policy."
I should like to quote further from Mr. Speaker's ruling of June 18, 1952. He said:
I should point out that the motion is for the Speaker to leave the chair, etc. It is not a motion to adopt the resolution. However, under our present practice members have been debating it as if it were such a motion. The minister makes an affirmative statement, frequently going into details, with the Speaker in the chair, and other members follow. The result is that a full discussion of the resolution takes place at this stage. I am sure that is not the procedure contemplated by standing order No. 60, nor is it in accordance with Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling, in which I concur.
After giving this matter my careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that if there is no objection to the consideration of the resolution in committee of the whole, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair should be put without debate. If any members are opposed to the resolution, and do not think that it should even be considered in the committee of the whole, or-
And I wish to underline these words.
-if they require additional information before agreeing to the motion, they should be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. The minister should endeavour to answer the objections which have been raised and to give the information requested.
May I say that it was precisely when the hon. member for Lake Centre contended that the resolution also covered irrigation projects, such as the South Saskatchewan river project, that the minister rose to a point of order and informed the hon. member that the resolution did not cover irrigation projects.
The concluding paragraph of Mr. Speaker's ruling reads as follows:
Accordingly in my opinion the practice of the minister opening the debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to consider in committee of the whole a resolution preceding a money bill should be discontinued.
When the discussion on this subject was before the house the other night a number of members expressed concern over the difficulty which the Speaker would have in keeping the debate within the limits of the above interpretation. I realize the difficulty but all I can do is to ask for the usual co-operation of all hon. members.
Now hon. members today, like hon. members then, express concern over the difficulty which the Speaker would have in keeping the debate within the limits of the interpretation outlined in that ruling. I realize there is that difficulty, but a decision must be made and if hon. members do not agree to it they are allowed to appeal from it.
In my humble view there is a clear distinction to be made between the subject of conservation of water resources and irrigation projects, no matter how germane the two subjects may appear to be. In view of the

Water Resources
declaration made by the minister that irrigation projects are not contemplated by this resolution and the measure to follow, and in view of the considerations as to limitation of the debate on a motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair contained in Mr. Speaker's ruling of June 18, 1952, I feel justified in ruling that the discussion of irrigation projects on this resolution is not relevant and, therefore, is not allowed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with profound respect, but in view of the fact that your ruling denies me and other hon. members the right to discuss the South Saskatchewan river irrigation project, I wish to appeal against your ruling.


Mr. Adamson:: Before you put the question may I ask whether your decision is that no question of the conservation of water will be debatable with the Speaker in the chair?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. I explained that debate on this motion is limited in view of the considerations which were outlined in Mr. Speaker's ruling to which I have referred. I expressed the view that it is not relevant to discuss irrigation projects or irrigation policy on this resolution.
Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those who are
opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
In the course of the debate on the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution respecting assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources, a point of order was raised by the Minister of Resources and Development to the effect that the proposed resolution does not deal with irrigation projects or irrigation policy, and such should not be discussed under this resolution. Mr. Speaker ruled that the discussion on irrigation projects and policy under this resolution was not allowable on the ground that it was not relevant.
From this ruling the hon. member for Lake Centre and others appealed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) may continue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak very briefly on the question of the conservation of water resources, with particular reference to the province of Saskatchewan, after which I shall move an amendment.
The situation in Saskatchewan, in so far as the conservation of water is concerned, is

very serious in various parts of the province. It is particularly so in the area referred to as the Palliser triangle. It is not something that is a novelty, because it has continued for generations. Only the other day I went back to the journal kept in 1856 by Captain Palliser, the great English explorer. He dealt with this subject in his diary on October 3, 1856, when the expedition was on the west bank of the South Saskatchewan river, at the Elbow.
He makes this entry in his journal concerning the valley running eastward of the South Saskatchewan river. He said his party were assured that in flood times this valley connected with the Qu'Appelle valley. He was very much interested in the idea of water conservation and communication between the South Saskatchewan and the Red river settlement, and used these words:
The valley containing the Red Deer lakes resembles in width that of a large river; it is said to cross the South Saskatchewan 12 miles below the Elbow and is said to run continuously and to join the valley of the Qu'Appelle by the Last Mountain lake. I was assured by the half breeds that there was hardly any obstruction beyond one low portage existing to cut off communication by this route in the spring with those lakes which are west of the Qu'Appelle river; information which is highly suggestive of a more minute engineering investigation as to the expense and feasibility of a connection-
And so on. He goes on to point out that as the years go by the need for water conservation in Saskatchewan, or in that part of Saskatchewan, will correspondingly increase. Then a little later on, in 1859, a report was made to the legislative assembly of Upper Canada pointing out that the area now known as Saskatchewan, and part of Alberta, needed something to be done in order to conserve moisture, for periodically that area found itself arid and unproductive.
Very considerable has been done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. That act, it is well to remember, was introduced by the Bennett government, and was sponsored by the Hon. Robert Weir, the then minister of agriculture, in order to do something to improve the situation in those parts of the prairie provinces where, as a result of drought, production ceased.
How serious the situation is in Saskatchewan may be gained from a few quotations. An article in the Toronto Saturday Night by two well-known Saskatchewan editors, Eric Knowles and Phil Wade, says this:
Agriculturally-minded Saskatchewan has never regained peace of mind since the terrible drought of the 30's which laid it in the dust.
Water Resources
Then it goes on to point out that there is need for rehabilitation and for water conservation through various means. I am not allowed to refer to irrigation; therefore I shall not. But this article refers to the restoration of lake levels and to the provision of urban water supplies, and rehabilitation in various other ways.
I think the house should have some information as to how serious the situation is in this central portion of Saskatchewan. Let me point out that in the area of 18 rural municipalities between Saskatoon, Regina and Moose Jaw, and also west of the Elbow, some indication of the degree of need for water conservation may be gained from the fact that between the years 1945 and 1950, inclusive, almost $7 million was paid under
the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in respect of crop failures. The following table will show the number of farmers affected, and the amounts received in each of the years indicated:		
Year	Number of Farmers Affected Amount paid	
1945 			 4,366	$1,129,755 835,618 1,675,282 1,793,873 1,540,275 831,458
1946 			 3,661	
1947 			 5,669	
1948 			 5,715	
1949 			 4,785	
1950 			 2,770	
These were payments made		for crop
failures. I suggest these figures give the house some conception of why I make an appeal in connection with moneys to be expended in pursuance of this resolution, and ask that moneys be expended in Saskatchewan where, apparently, little or no consideration is to be given, if the minister's statement made at the outset is to be taken in its entirety.
This is a serious situation. A royal commission met and dealt with the matter. It considered the need of water conservation projects in Saskatchewan. One of the recommendations it made had to do with the need of water conservation in the Pasquia area between the Saskatchewan and Carrot rivers, where, through diking, 100,000 acres in the area would be made profitable. That is all very good. That all comes within the provisions and the ambit of the resolution moved by the minister when he said there were going to be small projects and major projects and that apparently the purpose was to render, by drainage operations, certain areas available for agriculture. Let me say this-


Robert Henry Winters: I did not say that.

Water Resources


John George Diefenbaker: The minister does not want it made available lor agriculture; all right, available for some other utilization, forests or otherwise.


An hon. Member:: To conserve it, that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: I feel that this resolution as it stands is a mock resolution when it comes to grips with the situation that we have in Saskatchewan. Our situation is serious. Even in the last few years, in those municipalities, during productive years, I have given figures which indicate that however effective prairie farm rehabilitation has been, something more must be done.
We in Saskatchewan believe that the royal commission report is not fair or just to our province in that it does not make provision for water conservation, except for a suggestion in regard to the Pasquia plan and the one on the Qu'Appelle river. I should like to see my hon. friends from Saskatchewan who gave interviews to the press only two or three weeks ago get up in their places and demand on behalf of the people of that province what is in the heart of everyone there, that something must be done as far as the royal commission is concerned.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: On a point of order, are we going to be allowed to discuss the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan? I want to know if I can accept the invitation of the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: I have spoken nothing of irrigation; I have spoken of the inadequacy of the report. I am surprised at my hon. friend's interest and this making one voice outside of parliament when exercising a different vote in parliament.


Mr. Ferrie:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says I should not say anything about the inadequacy of that report, and the hon. member for Kindersley has said that the royal commission has a considerable amount of eyewash mixed in with it.


John James Smith: I did not say
any such thing. I was asking you, Mr. Speaker, if we were going to be allowed to discuss this whole program. I am just as much interested in the South Saskatchewan program as is the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not mentioned the South Saskatchewan project.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member who has the floor talking about a royal commission and he has also referred to a report.

It is quite difficult for the Chair to make a decision. I have seen the report having to do with the South Saskatchewan river. As long as the hon. member speaks about a report, about a royal commission, and does not identify it; if he is satisfied that that is the way he should speak about things, without identifying them, then I am at a loss to decide whether he is really speaking about the specific report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river. The hon. member knows that a ruling was given a moment ago, and he cannot transgress that ruling by speaking indirectly of something that he would have spoken about had the ruling not been given. I know he realizes that.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) apparently identifies the report to which the hon. member for Lake Centre is referring as being the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project. I ask hon. members to give me their co-operation, and that is all I can do at the moment. Debate is allowed on a motion provided it is within the rules. I ask the hon. member, if he was transgressing the ruling I gave a moment ago, not to continue doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: I have never transgressed the rules at any time, and I am amazed at my friends from Saskatchewan who read into my remarks anything in connection with irrigation when I have refrained specifically from mentioning that. They seem to have sensibilities that are easily seared by imaginary things.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I realize that a lawyer can make words go around and around and around. I want to know just how the hon. member can talk about the Elbow river, how he can talk about a royal commission, how he can talk about things that came down in the report and not mention the South Saskatchewan river project.


Mr. Hees:: That shows how smart he is.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As far as that is concerned, I want to say that we are just as much in favour of it as he is.


George Harris Hees: Go and vote for it then.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the right place to say that is in parliament instead of saying it in press reports and then voting against any discussion of it in parliament.


George James McIlraith: That is not what the vote was on.


John George Diefenbaker: I am amazed to find my confreres from Saskatchewan rising one and all and referring to a report about which I

have said nothing in so far as irrigation is concerned, other than to point out that it deals with the Pasquia project and the rehabilitation of swamp land. Immediately my hon. friends see in that some transgression. The people of Saskatchewan want them to be saying something for irrigation instead of trying to prevent us discussing it.


George James McIlraith: It was the point of order that was voted on.


Mr. Sluder:: You said you were not discussing irrigation.
Water Resources
Therefore I declare the amendment out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: I respectfully appeal,
with deference, from your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not talking about that. My hon. friends jump. Are they so sensitive? I tell them that the people of Saskatchewan are not satisfied with these two simple recommendations of that commission. They want action-


An hon. Member:: What commission?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Is there another commission somewhere?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not finish the sentence. My hon. friends seem to be mind readers. They know they should be supporting the thing they are trying to prevent my bringing before you. I say that the rules prevent any discussion of the matter that you ruled out, and I refrained specifically from mentioning it. I do not like to have my hon. friends interrupt just because their consciences are pricking them because they will not take a stand on the subject. Not only should they have a voice on this, they should vote. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That all the words after "that" in the resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house a measure respecting the conservation of water resources should include provision for the immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam project."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment of course is out of order because the motion now before the house is that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon a certain proposed resolution, and it is not permissible at this stage to amend the terms of the resolution itself. I should like to refer the hon. member to a ruling on the same point made by Mr. Speaker Glen which appears at page 551 of Beauchesne's third edition. I should like to read to the house the conclusion of Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling which appears at page 553. It is as follows:
Mr. Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that the question before the chair was a motion that he leave the chair and that, at this stage, it was not permissible to amend the terms of the proposed resolution.
And. more than five members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members. And the members having been called in: Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:


Robert Henry Winters: , seconded by Mr. Fournier, Hull, that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution respecting assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources. Mr. Diefenbaker moved, seconded by Mr. Green, in amendment thereto:
"That all the words after 'that' in the resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor: 'in the opinion of this house a measure respecting the conservation of water resources should include provision for the immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam project'." I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was not permissible at this stage to amend the terms of the proposed resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the resolution we have before us precedes a measure for the conservation of water resources under the terms outlined in the resolution, and provides for a payment by the federal government of 37J per cent of the cost of the various projects that may come under this legislation.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, although it may be technically correct, as the minister says, that this resolution deals only with water conservation, nevertheless it cannot help but have a bearing upon the soil resources in various parts of Canada. If you are conserving water resources for the prevention of floods, surely one of the important reasons for the prevention of floods is to prevent damage to agricultural lands. That being the case I say that this resolution and this legislation is in the wrong department; not because I have not the greatest respect for the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) but because I feel that any proposition dealing with water conservation must at the same time affect the conservation of our soil resources, and should be in the Department of Agriculture.
I am very disappointed indeed with the niggardly contribution that the federal government proposes to make toward any project developed under this particular legislation. Reviewing other projects in the past, the government here took the position that it should pay the total cost of large capital

works and that any subsidiary costs should be paid by the provincial authority. The provincial authority may derive some of the necessary funds from citizens who receive definite advantage from the project. In any large project that has been finalized the federal government's contribution, instead of being something over one-third of the cost, has been approximately two-thirds of the over-all cost of the project.
Other projects, and especially one other major project for Saskatchewan, if dealt with by this resolution would be most inadequately covered because the proportion of the sums involved which the federal government is prepared to advance is in my opinion very low, far too' low, and would not be a satisfactory basis for the general conservation of water resources. I protest, Mr. Speaker, along with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the fact that in this resolution, and in the statement which the minister gave to the house this afternoon, there is no provision for water conservation on the South Saskatchewan river in the province of Saskatchewan.
It has already been pointed out how important water is to that province. The hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned a number of municipalities and the cost to the government through P.F.A.A. and other payments. I might mention 36 municipalities in the central area of Saskatchewan which over the years have cost the public treasury some $29 million in relief payments and over $15 million in prairie farm assistance. That is a total cost to the federal treasury of well over $40 million.
That area of Canada, the central portion of Saskatchewan, needs water conservation in the worst way. Certainly I feel that it is not only in the public interest in the sense that we should help our Canadian citizens living in that part of Saskatchewan, but it is also in the public interest from a financial standpoint; because unless there is adequate water conservation and utilization in that area there will be a further burden of many millions of dollars on the federal treasury in the years to come.
I hope that, while we have been unable to discuss a development that is in the minds of many members this evening on this motion that is before us now, the minister who is piloting this resolution through the house will discuss the matter with his colleagues in the cabinet and make certain we are given a chance at an early date to debate the other matter which we all have in our minds, that is the South Saskatchewan river project, so the people of Saskatchewan may also have a

chance of obtaining a program and a project that would provide them with real water conservation in that area.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution comes from the wrong department. The resolution makes a mockery of water conservation when it does not deal with the project that is in the minds of most members. I say to the government that in order to discharge their responsibility, particularly their responsibility to the people of western Canada, they should provide a water conservation measure under which payments far above the 37J per cent set forth here can be made. I would say, as a matter of fact, that any percentage less than two-thirds of the total final cost of the project is something less than the government should provide.
I am disappointed, as I have said, that this project is not in the Department of Agriculture. The agricultural institute of Canada, in a submission to the government earlier this year, made reference to this very legislation which was forecast in the speech from the throne. They contended that any conservation of water resources that affected the soil in any way, shape or form, should be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture. On page 1 of their brief, they had this to say:
We have learned th^t the government of Canada proposes to present to the present session of parliament legislation concerning the conservation of water resources.
That is the legislation we are discussing now.
It is the opinion of the institute that unless such development is entirely exclusive of actual water conservation relating to agriculture, it would lead only to serious duplication of effort, wastage of public funds and considerable confusion.
I say this resolution proves that there is duplication in the matter of water conservation. If we are to get efficient management of our water and soil resources; if we are to get adequate conservation, then the authority handling the conservation of water resources should also handle the conservation of soil resources, and that authority should be in the Department of Agriculture.
We are extremely disappointed that this resolution has not made provision for that project which is dear to the hearts of the people of Saskatchewan, no matter to what political party they may belong. We naturally hope that a member of the government will bring forward a proposition at an early date that will provide for that project. Moreover, whether or not the government decides to carry out the requests that I have made, I trust that the government will delay no longer in giving parliament an opportunity
Water Resources
to discuss this very important matter. If the opportunity is delayed until after the dissolution of this parliament, then I feel that the people of Saskatchewan in every political party will resent what will appear to them to have been interference with the democratic right of their members to voice their opinion on that vital project.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This debate, Mr. Speaker, has brought out a fundamental difference in outlook between two professions, that of the engineer and the lawyer. The engineer wants to do something without talking about it, and the lawyer wants to talk about it without doing anything. The difference between the two professions is this. The engineer only gets paid when he does something, and the lawyer gets paid when he talks about it so that he can talk about it again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see that a lot of engineers got paid quite a bit of money for very bad advice.


Agar Rodney Adamson: As a member of the house, and as an engineer, one finds oneself in great sympathy-if the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) had not interrupted-with the lawyers in this house.


Mr. Gibson:: Don't feel sorry for them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Unless there is adequate discussion in this parliament there can be no action, and it is for that reason that I propose, with due deference, to take a little time.
The question of water conservation is one which affects the entire continent of North America. It is not merely a question of the construction of a few dams. It is not merely a question of localized grants to provinces and it is not, as I hope to ishow, purely an agricultural problem. The' problem of water conservation enters the whole economic life of the country. I want to mention the case of the three prairie provinces. It is hoped that the three prairie provinces will gradually become industrialized, as have the states on the great plains in the republic of the United States of America. The economy of these states has become more co-ordinated and has not been subjected to the difficulties of a one-crop economy, with all the devastating fluctuations which take place in a country or a province with that type of economy.
The question of water and industrialization is perhaps one of which hon. members do not realize the importance. The consumption of water industrially is simply stupendous, and and I propose to give a few figures to show what the industrialization of a country means in terms of water consumption. For instance,

Water Resources
the production of a ton of rolled steel requires the consumption of 110,000 gallons of water. This water is completely dissipated in the form of steam and in other ways. The production of a ton of rayon yam takes 250,000 to 400,000 gallons of water; a barrel of aviation gasoline takes from 1,050 gallons of water, if made from the natural product, to as much as 15,000 gallons of water if made synthetically.
If we are ever going to help the west industrialize, the problem of the water table ground water supply is just as essential as the other minerals which will be necessary to make the west an industrial area. Therefore when we talk about the conservation of water, particularly in the west, we are not merely dealing with the taboo subject, which of course I shall not mention; we are dealing with the very basis of the economy of the whole country.
The precipitation in North America south of the northern limit of cereals is approximately 30 inches a year, and for Canada this works out to about 5 billion acre-feet of water. An acre-foot is the term used for discussing water supplies on the land, meaning a depth of one foot of water over an area of an acre. This tremendous amount of water is only partially used by man. Most of it is either wasted or is disposed of in what is known as the run-off. Irrigation, domestic, municipal and industrial use is probably less than 100 million acre-feet in Canada out of about 5 billion. The United States figure is 160 million acre-feet.
We have in North America two-thirds of the world's supply of surface water. That is a conservative estimate. The surface water is lakes, streams, and water which is, as the name implies, on the surface, but differs of course from ground water which is under the surface. The ground water supply which we have at the moment is equal to about thirty years of annual precipitation. In other words the ground water at any time is equal to about thirty years of run-off; but despite this abundant source of ground water we have in the last few years suffered a shocking drought because we have been negligent in the conservation of our water supply. We have permitted excessive run-off; we have depleted in certain sections the ground water; we have lowered the water table until some places in the province of Saskatchewan are unsuited now for industries because of the lack of ground water.
That is something we cannot let go without endeavouring to correct it. Where you have a condition of the soil brought about by carelessness, by bad management, by lack of conservation which has destroyed the ability

of that area to have a balanced economy, then it is time something more than those steps which are envisaged in this resolution is done. It is for that reason that I think this resolution is inadequate.
We go on from the question of ground water to the question of evaporation. The term which is used is evapo-transpiration, and it accounts for about two-thirds of the total precipitation every year. As the climate over the last fifty years has definitely shown that it is slowly but steadily warming, the transpiration is increasing and the evaporation due to the warmer climate is much greater than it was a quarter or a half century ago; and as the trend is continuing the question of conservation becomes, with every fraction of a degree increase in temperature, a very much more serious problem.
I shall not go into the details of water use and discuss the matter in any technical terms, but let me say this. Our North American cities use approximately between 150 gallons and 160 gallons per capita per day; whereas the European cities use fewer than 40 gallons of water per capita per day. It is on that use of water that a very great deal of our income and our high standard of living is based. If we allow our surface water to run off in the excesses to which it is doing in many rivers today, or if we allow the water table to sink lower and lower and become depleted, we will endanger the metropolitan life of our country.
If you want to realize how serious that can be you have only to look back to 1949 and 1950 at the terrific catastrophe that was narrowly averted in the city of New York when the reservoirs of that city practically dried up. Despite our apparent abundance of water, the same thing could happen here. I live on a small creek that used to be a salmon river. It has not had a fish in it for 25 years. Yet in the middle of the last century it was a salmon river.
The trend is still going on. We do not see it, because we do not measure the destruction of our water supply with a scientific instrument. We say, "What a pity it is that the old swimming hole is not what it used to be." Or we say, "What a pity it is that the old creek is not full of water, and has no fish in it any more."
The reason it is not as it was before lies in the fact that we are scandalously wasteful of the greatest heritage we have, and that is our water supply. We are more profligate in the waste of water than in perhaps anything else. I speak tonight on this resolution because I feel this whole question of the conservation of water is one which must be

taken as a permanent, long-term problem, not merely as a resolution brought in concerning a few check-dams.
It has to form a part of the basic thinking of this country because, Mr. Speaker, despite the abundance we have, despite our amazing riches we can, as we have in parts of Canada, destroy this great heritage.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we have been so long away from the subject matter of the resolution it might be fitting to place on record just what it states. The resolution we are discussing is as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure, such grants not to exceed thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the-
And I understand the words "cost of the" are to be put in there.
*-projects; and to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the above mentioned purposes; and to provide that all officers, clerks and employees required for carrying out the provisions of the measure shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
I should not like to go very far away from the excellent speech just delivered by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) before commending him. I believe he has made a real contribution to the information of hon. members and the country, and I think his warning voice is lifted not one minute too soon.
I do not hesitate to say that I am heartily in support of this resolution. Our group has felt that this was not a resolution under which we should be discussing any irrigation project at all. This resolution, as it says, is purely for the conservation of water. That is why we have supported Mr. Speaker's rulings in both cases; and our names will appear as having voted contrary to members of the C.C.F. and the Progressive Conservative party. It is not that we are not deeply in sympathy with the development of water reservoirs and irrigation systems but, according to our understanding, that kind of thing will be taken care of under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which at the present time, as everyone recognizes, is an excellent measure and is being administered with what I consider to be great wisdom, courage and progressiveness.
I do not think it is fitting that members in opposition should be everlastingly finding fault with the government when the government is doing a good job. When it is doing well I believe in telling it so, just as I believe that when a man is living a good life one
Water Resources
ought to tell him a little bit about it before he dies, and should not be content with sending him flowers after he dies. I am not hoping that the Liberal government will die, but I will say that, in my judgment, since it took office in 1935 this government has administered the P.F.R.A. with what I consider to be laudable wisdom and progressiveness.
Before going further may I express sympathy with the British Columbia members who have sought to have the operations of P.F.R.A. extended to their province. I see no reason why that should not be done; in fact I see a good many reasons why it should be done.
Then turning to the resolution, may I say again I believe it is a laudable one. I am not saying that it goes far enough. I do not say that the hon. member for York West was extreme in pointing out what he considered to be deficiencies in the resolution. However, I look upon it as a very good one, because it is a step in the right direction. It is a first step, and a good substantial one, when the government undertakes to pay 37J per cent of the cost of water conservation projects undertaken jointly by the provinces and the dominion. Perhaps we shall see a better provision before long; but, as a start, I think this is a very good one, and I desire to voice commendation for it.
I should like to revert to the general subject the hon. member for York West has discussed. In addition to offering my congratulations, I should like to give him support. For the benefit of those who live in parts of Canada remote from areas most affected by this resolution, I would point out that we have in the three prairie provinces an enormous area known as the Palliser triangle, to which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already referred this evening. I, too, made reference to it in my remarks a year ago in support of the South Saskatchewan dam.
This Palliser triangle is a potential source of very great wealth, if it is properly managed.	It can be a source of great
calamity to this nation if it is not wisely managed. Somehow or another we must make provision for wise management of the Palliser triangle. True, we have great crops, sometimes year after year, in that area. But there is hardly a year in which there are not numbers of farmers in that region who lose their crops because of drought. There have been years when that whole country has been threatened with dust-bowl conditions.
Those times can come again. What should we be prepared to do to implement this resolution? In the first place, as has been

Water Resources
pointed out several times during the session, we have a watershed on the eastern slope of ithe Reeky mountains. Much has been done already by the provinces and the federal government through wise co-operation by way of making provision for the adequate protection of the forests on the watershed. I know, however, that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) realizes that much more must be done.
There are great stretches on those mountain slopes where the forests have been denuded. Each of those slopes from which forests have been removed is a threat to the water supply of the Palliser triangle. We have to look forward to a time when we shall reforest our mountain slopes that have been denuded by settlers and by fires. That would cost a lot of money but it is one of the things that must be looked after, perhaps under the provisions contemplated by this resolution. Far too little water is falling in Alberta and Saskatchewan to meet the needs of the Palliser triangle in respect of irrigation alone. In addition to irrigation we have the needs of the cities-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should not refer to the irrigation project about which he is now speaking. As he knows, under the ruling given earlier he would be out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, after your experiences tonight I do not wonder that you are meticulous in the application of the rules. But I was not going to discuss irrigation; I was simply referring to the need of water for irrigation. In addition to those needs there must be water for the settlements. That need is increasing. Cities like Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and others across these plains will require more and more water, and provision must be made for them to have more water. That provision must be made before we go too far. I am not sure that enough care has been taken to look forward to the increasing needs of our cities and settlers as far as water for domestic and industrial uses is concerned. I take it that one of the objects of this resolution is to have all such matters looked into and to take the necessary measures while still there is time.
A good deal of the area in the Palliser triangle at least will have to be regrassed. This will have to be done on a large scale. Wind erosion has been very notable in many parts, and water erosion has been great. As a means of protecting the soil against erosive

elements we shall have either to regrass or cover with some other vegetation. This will cost money. I would imagine that such measures will be covered by this resolution.
In addition we need more forest fire control. There are nowhere near adequate means for protection against fire, although much progress has been made in the last fifteen years. We are still terrified when a forest fire breaks out because we are never sure it will be brought under control. We should spend enough money to enable us to check an ordinary forest fire in a reasonably short time. The devastation wrought in British Columbia and Alberta by forest fires during my memory is something we cannot afford to allow to continue. Otherwise we shall just not have the means of conserving water or providing ourselves with the wood we need.
Then there is the matter of dams and reservoirs, not for irrigation but for conservation. There are many places in the mountains where, by the building of dams, we could reservoir a great deal of water. There are many lakes which could be filled. I am sure the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelc'h) will be mentioning one of these, Sullivan lake, in connection with the Red Deer diversion area which is so dear to his heart. There are many lakes like that throughout the country which could be filled with water which now runs to waste in the spring or in times of wet weather during the summer. A great deal of this water could be conserved by the strategic building of dams.
I have mentioned only two or three matters in a rambling sort of way. I did not expect to participate in this debate. I have meant what I have said as in the nature of support for the resolution. As I remarked at the beginning, I commend the minister for introducing the resolution. It is a progressive resolution; I propose to support it. I intend to back any additional provisions such as this as long as I am permitted to remain in this house.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will consider the following measures:	Bill No.
103, to amend the National Defence Act; Bill No. 7, to amend the Loan Companies Act; Bill No. 8, to amend the Trust Companies Act; Bill No. 38, respecting the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company; Bill No. 39, to amend the Canadian Overseas

Telecommunication Corporation Act; Bill No. 19, to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act; and Bill No. 40, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
We hope to have time to take up the three resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development that were announced yesterday. One is with respect to the conservation of water resources; the
Business of the House
other is with respect to the establishment of a historic sites and monuments board of Canada, and then there is the resolution to revise and consolidate the Yukon Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we going into supply as well?


Alphonse Fournier: Not on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
-97
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 2, 1953