1953-01-12

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messrs:
Benidickson
Boisvert
Brooks
Cardiff
Carter
Coldwell
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Courtemanche Crestohl Dickey Diefenbaker Dinsdale Fair Fulford Goode
Gour (Russell)
Harris
Knowles
Leduc
Lefrangois
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacKenzie
Murphy
Parent
Pouliot
Richard (Ottawa East) Stewart (Yorkton) Stuart (Charlotte) Viau-29.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Argue
Balcer
Balcom
Bater
Beyerstein
Bonnier
Brooks
Cameron
Cauchon
Churchill
Cleaver
Croll
Decore
Demers
Dinsdale
Eyre
Ferguson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
George
Hansell
Hees
Hosking
Hunter
Jeffery
Kent
Knight
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Lefrangois
Lennard
Little
MacDougall
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Macnaughton McLean (Huron-Perth) Meeker Montgomery Noseworthy Roberge Robertson Simmons Starr
Stewart (Yorkton)
Studer
Valois
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Winkler
Wood
Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs:
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messrs:
Applewhaite
Beaudry
Bertrand
Beyerstein
Bonnier
Bourget
Browne (St. John's West)
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Casselman
Cauchon
Cavers
Chevrier
Churchill
Clark
Conacher
Darroch
Dewar
Eudes
Ferguson
Follwell
Fulton
Garland
Gillis
Gourd (Chapleau)
Green
Harkness
Harrison
Healy
Herridge
Hodgson
James
Lafontaine
Low
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
McCulloch
McGregor
Mclvor
Mott
Murphy
Murray (Cariboo)
Mutch
Nickle
Nixon
Nose worthy
Pouliot
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley
Robinson
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East)
Shaw
Spence
Stuart (Charlotte) Thatcher Weaver Whiteside Whitman-60.
(Quorum-20)
Adamson
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Bennett
Blackmore
Brooks
Cameron
Cannon
Carroll
Cleaver
Crestohl
Dumas
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gibson
Gingras
Gour (Russell)
Harkness
Hees
Hellyer
Helme
Henry
Hunter
Jeffery
Laing
Leduc
Low
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Macnaughton
Maltais
McCusker
Nickle
Nowlan
Picard
Quelch
Richard (Ottawa East) Riley
Smith (York North) Smith (Moose Mountain) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Viau Ward Welbourn White (Hastings-Peterborough) -50.
(Quorum-15)
Anderson
Applewhaite
Ashbourne
Balcer
Beaudry
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs:
Benidickson
Beyerstein
Blue
Boisvert
Boivin
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Brisson
Browne (St. John's West)
Cauchon
Cavers
Churchill
Cleaver
Cloutier
Croll
Denis
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gibson
Green
Harkness
Helme
Johnston
Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Larson
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Major
Maltais
McCusker
Nowlan
Pearkes
Picard
Pinard
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Shaw
Sinnott
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Wright-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Anderson
Arsenault
Aylesworth
Bater
Bennett
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Blue Breton
Browne (St. John's West) Bruneau Bryce Cardiff Catherwood Charlton Clark Corry
Courtemanche Cruickshank Darroch Demers Diefenbaker Dinsdale Dumas Fair
Fontaine
Gauthier (Lapointe) George Gour Harkness Herridge Hetland
Jutras
Jones
Kent
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Laing
MacKenzie
MacLean (Queens)
Major
Masse
McCubbin
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McWilliam
Murray (Oxford)
Murray (Cariboo)
Proudfoot
Quelch
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge Ross (Souris)
Spence
Studer
Welboum
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Wood
Wright
Wylie-60.
(Quorum-20) STANDING ORDERS
Messrs:
Boisvert
Boucher
Breton
Casselman
Denis
Gibson
Green
Henry
Huffman
Knowles
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Meeker
Monette
Pinard
Quelch
Robinson
Ross (Souris)
Smith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Viau-20.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Applewhaite Arsenault Ashbourne Balcom Bennett
Black (Cumberland) Blackmore Breton Cannon Catherwood Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Fulford Gibson Gillis Harrison Henderson Higgins James
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Langlois (Gaspe)
Leger
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
MacLean (Queens)
MacNaught
Maltais
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McLure
Mott
Pearkes
Robichaud
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte) Thomas Wood-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Applewhaite
Benidickson
Black (Cumberland)
Boivin
Brisson
Byrne
Dickey
Dumas
Eyre
Ferrie
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Harkness
Herridge
Higgins
Hosking
Hunter
Jones
LaCroix
Lafontaine
Larson
Little
MacLean (Queens)
Mclvor
McWilliam
Nickle
Pearkes
Proudfoot
Stick
Thomas
Weaver
Welbourn
Wylie-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Balcer
Beaudoin
Black (Cumberland)
Boucher
Bourget
Breton
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne
Carroll
Churchill
Clark
Cloutier
Conacher
Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Croll
Fairclough, Mrs.
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gillis Higgins J ohnston Knowles Lennard
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
McWilliam
Mott
Murphy
Nixon
Pouliot
Ross (Hamilton East) Starr
Stewart (Yorkton) Viau
Weaver-35.
(Quorum-8)
(Quorum-10)
DEBATES Messrs:
Boucher	Knowles
Casselman	Murray (Oxford)
Crestohl	Pouliot
Hees	Simmons
Henry	Valois
Johnston	Viau-12.
(Quorum-7)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Bater
Benidickson Bennett Bradette Coldwell
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Croll
Decore
Dlefenbaker
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Gauthier (Portneuf) Goode Graydon
Green
Higgins
Jutras
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Lesage
Low
MacDougall
Maclnnis
MacKenzie
Macnaughton
McCusker
Picard
Pinard
Quelch
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Robichaud
Stick-35.
(Quorum-10)
Rowe	Ward
Smith	(York	North)	White (Middlesex East)Smith	(Moose	Mountain) WhitesideTustin	Winkler-44.
Valois
(Quorum-)
[Stage Direction]
Casselman Cruickshank Dewar Ferguson
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gour (Russell)
Hansell Harkness
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
Messrs:
Masse
McCulloch
McGregor
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East) Riley Rochefort Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stick Ward Warren
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
PRINTING Messrs:	
Argue	Hees
Ashbourne	Hetland
Bertrand	Hodgson
Beyerstein	Hunter
Black (Chateauguay-	Lefrangois
Huntingdon-Laprairie) MacLean (Cape Breton	
Blackmore	North and Victoria)
Boivin	Maltais
Bonnier	McDonald (Parry Sound-
Breton	Muskoka)
Bryce	Mclvor
Cameron	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Cardiff	McWilliam
Cauchon	Montgomery
Cavers	Murray (Oxford)
Charlton	Robertson
Cruickshank	Rochefort
Darroch	Rowe
Dechene	Shaw
Dickey	Simmons
Fairclough, Mrs.	Sinnott
Ferguson	Stanfield
Ferrie	Stuart (Charlotte)
Follwell	Studer
Fontaine	Tustin
Gingras	Weaver .
Gour (Russell)	Whitman
Harkness Healy	Wright-54.
(Quorum-) LIBRARY Messrs:	
Beyerstein	Jones
Blackmore	Kirk (Antigonish-
Brown (Essex West)	Guysborough)
Carroll	Knight
Carter	LaCroix
Conacher	Laing
Coyle	Leger
Dechene	MacLean (Queens)
Demers	MacNaught
Dinsdale	Mcllraith
Eudes	McMillan
Gauthier (Lapointe)	Meeker
Gingues	Noseworthy
Goode	Pearkes
Hellyer	Proudfoot
Henderson	Ratelle
Higgins	Rochefort
Hunter	Ross (Hamilton East)
(Quorum-)
Mr. Weir moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament and that the following members, namely:	Messrs. Argue, Ashbourne, Bertrand,
Beyerstein, Black, (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie), Blackmore, Boivin, Bonnier, Breton, Bryce, Cameron, Cardiff, Cauchon, Cavers, Charlton, Cruickshank, Darroch, Dechene, Dickey, Fair-clough, Mrs., Ferguson, Ferrie, Follwell, Fontaine, Gingras, Gour (Russell), Harkness, Healy, Hees, Hetland, Hodgson, Hunter, Lefrangois, MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Maltais, McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka), Mclvor, McLean (Huron-Perth), McWilliam, Montgomery, Murray (Oxford), Robertson, Rochefort, Rowe, Shaw, Simmons, Sinnott, Stanfield, Stuart (Charlotte), Studer, Tustin, Weaver, Whitman and Wright, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Standing Committees
Speaker and Messrs: Beyerstein, Blackmore, Brown (Essex West), Carroll, Carter, Conaeher, Coyle, Dechene, Demers, Dinsdale, Eudes, Gauthier (Lapointe), Gingues, Goode, Hellyer, Henderson, Higgins, Hunter, Jones, Kirk (Antigonish-Guys-borough), Knight, LaCroix, Laing, Leger, MacLean (Queens), MacNaught, McHraith, McMillan, Meeker, Noseworthy, Pearkes, Proudfoot, Ratelle, Rochefort, Ross (Hamilton East), Rowe, Smith (York North), Smith (Moose Mountain), Tustin, Valois, Ward, White (Middlesex East), Whiteside and Winkler, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.
Motion agreed to.
William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting their honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs: Casselman, Cruickshank, Dewar, Ferguson, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gour (Russell), Hansell, Harkness, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge), Little, Macdonald (Edmonton East), MacNaught, Masse, McCulloch, McGregor, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Riley, Rochefort, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, Ward, Warren and White (Hastings-Peterborough), to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons ,as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table the public accounts of Canada, and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table two copies in English and French of the Canada Gazette, part II, statutory orders and regulations, issued on December 24, 1952.
I should also like to lay on the table a summary of orders in council passed during the period December 1 to 31, 1952.
I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) will be glad to know that there are only about a third as many as were passed in the month of December, 1951. That is due, mostly, to the establishment of government contract regulations and land purchase regulations, under which the powers of the governor in council are delegated in certain cases to the appropriate minister and, in other cases, to treasury board.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: This action shows signs of improvement.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Robert Gordon. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Helen Isabelle Hammond Dadson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Harold Gordon McFarlane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Dezso Ferenc Cross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Eric Ernest Auclair.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Napoleon Jean-Paul Chayer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Marie Josephte Gilberte Belanger Byrne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Nina Difiore Statner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Tillie Tietle-baum Victor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Elina Iacurto Floyd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Jennie Miller Solomon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Elia Kuczerian. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Ruth Audrey Lorraine Beauchamp Laderoute.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Phyllis Newman Lunan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Helen Doreen Cave Crawshaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Armand Fre-nette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Florence Brown Boyaner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Eileen Mercedes Hudson Walsh.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Madeleine McCartney Ratcliff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Kathleen Mary Wilkinson Paraskiewicz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Georges Chaput. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Florence Anna Carsh Laing.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Beatrice Miriam Kert Beloff-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of John Alexander Stronach.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Raymond Gelinas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Anna Madeline Patterson Cotter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Claudia Marie Boudreau Leblanc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Lily Belzberg Bigman.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. 91, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Lesage.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Minnie Gruhn Boon.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the report from the commission on the Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project is available. If so, is it favourable, and is it the government's intention to go ahead with the project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the three questions separately. The information I have is that the printing of the appendices for the report will be complete on the 17th. We have asked if it cannot be advanced a bit so that we may be able to submit the report and the appendices to the Governor General and table them this week. I am not sure whether the printer will be able to comply with that request or not; but I fully expect that, if he cannot, they will be ready for tabling on Monday.
As to whether or not the report is favourable, I do not think I should answer that question until the report has gone to His Excellency the Governor General. I must confess that out of curiosity I read the first part of it, but I would not care to be further indiscreet about it or about action upon it.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the Prime Minister this question because Time magazine advanced all the arguments appearing in it, and I am wondering how that magazine got hold of it.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The hon. member knows that this is not the only instance where leaks have taken place.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this report not to be changed?



P.E.I. CAR FERRY SERVICE BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY    TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Does the government propose to transfer the management of the Borden-Tormentine ferries from the Canadian National Railways to Canadian National Steamships? If so, on what date;
Inquiries of the Ministry and, has the government of Prince Edward Island been informed of the proposed change?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am not aware of any such proposal.


An hon. Member:: Try again.



NATIONAL LIBRARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Can he say whether any definite decision has been taken .with respect to the construction of a building to house the national library?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
should not venture to reply at once to a question in that form. There has been a decision upon a site for the national library, and an architect has been commissioned to prepare the plans for it.
In principle, the decision was made when the legislation was recommended to the house that there be a national library, when parliament saw fit, upon recommendation of the government, to appropriate the funds required for it. As soon as a decision to seek an appropriation is made it will be announced to the house.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I gave him notice, but I am afraid it was a little late to be of much use to him. Then, I did not bring my own copy of the question to the house so, in that respect, we are both in the same position.
In view of the news reports which came from Paris and Bonn in the latter part of last week indicating that perhaps the European defence community arrangements were going to be altered in a far-reaching fashion-


Mr. Mutch:: Question.


Gordon Graydon: Well, I was not directing it to you, but perhaps you would like to answer it.
In view of this, will it be necessary to revise the protocol that was endorsed and approved by this House of Commons last spring? Perhaps the minister would indicate
888	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
what nations have given legislative approval of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization protocol.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Before I attempt to answer that question, which deals with a very important matter, I would wish to know whether the reported statements to which my hon. friend referred will result in any particular proposals and, if so, what these proposals will be. Before we get word of the proposals it is most difficult to say what effect, if any, they would have on the European defence community and the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty.
Replying to the latter part of the question,
I shall have to look up and see how many countries have ratified the protocol and I will let my hon. friend know as soon as I get that information.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) or to the Acting Minister of Defence Production, whichever is appropriate. Is it correct, as reported in the press, that Mr. Hunter has been appointed to supervise defence expenditures and, if so, what were the reasons that it was felt necessary to make this appointment?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will allow this question to stand I shall be glad to get the information and give him a reply later.



RADIO BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO ABOLITION OF LICENCE FEE On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the
Minister of National Revenue if the government has come any nearer to making a decision with respect to the abolition of the radio licence fee?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Not any nearer.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second Reading of Bill No. 11, for the relief of Barbara Carrique Cordeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper. Would the house like me to call all the bills at one time for second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Barbara Carrique Cordeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Frederick Kenneth Hare.-Mr. Winkler.,
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Frances Waver-tree Harris McClure.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Nicole Jeanne Andree Marion Comys.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Joseph Mattioli. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Gabrielle Bertrand McCullough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Katherine Jessie McArthur,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Sarah Cohen Lintz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Fernande Robitaille Viel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of John Joseph Francis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Olga Andrews Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Lois Hattie Adelstein Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Nellie Slade McCue.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Jean Davis Brady.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Dominique Fiorito.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Pearl Elmeda Clarke Staples.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of James Arthur Bruce.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Bernice Rosen Rapps.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Murray Cecil Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Elizabeth Florence Robson Hamilton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Winniefred Ann Maltby Gurlevitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marie Claude Audette Isabelle Boulanger Douglas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Gaston Courtemanche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Norma Bernstein Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mina Eisenthal Hamerman Segal, otherwise known as Mina Eisenthal Segall.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 50, for the relief of Agnes Charlotte Quamme Higgins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Agnes Mary Perkins Pereira.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Rosalia Marie Sepchuk Maniloff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Anne Reddie Banks Carruthers Beaudoin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Doris Isabell Dalzell Bennett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Costanza Marzitelli Boisvert..-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Gladys Emily Miller Young.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Francoise Ernout Fisher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Margaret Girvan Hill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Fernand Ratelle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Charles Meela Voyinovitch Seifert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Lily Isenberg Kwavnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Doreen Mae Walmough dit Watmough	Colson.-Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention today to take time to speak to any of these thirty-eight divorce bills, the second reading of which is now before the house. However, I cannot let the motion for the second reading of these thirty-eight bills pass without indicating my continued opposition to this method of dealing with divorces and my hope that even yet this parliament will find a better way.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



PEACE RIVER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 42, to incorporate Peace River Transmission Company Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. J. H. Rooney (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 43, respecting Beaver Fire Insurance Company.
Questions


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


Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	How many -300 Garand rifles, if any, were ordered from the United States?
2.	Has delivery been received of the total number ordered?
3.	What was the total purchase price of 300 Garand rifles received by Canada?
4.	Is Canada still purchasing these rifles?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	34,096.
2.	No.
3.	Garand rifles received to date were delivered for a total quoted price of $703,014. Payments thus far have been advances; no actual bills have been received.
4.	No.


ARMED FORCES, KOREA-DISCHARGES AND RE-ENLISTMENTS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many men have returned from Korea after service with the armed forces, month by month, since the 1st of January, 1952?
2.	Of these, how many have been discharged, month by month?
3.	Of those discharged, how many have reenlisted?	*


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	January, 1952	 160
February	 172
March	   796
April	 397
May	 3,391
June	 1,062
July	   493
August	 779
September	 499
October	 413
November	 160
8,322
2.	January, 1952	 0
February	 11
March	 34
April	 56
May	 31
June	 104
July	 436
August	 1,223
September	 548
October	 413
November	 293
3.	107.
3,149

Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, NFLD.
[Stage Direction]
EARNINGS, ROLLING STOCK, E^C.
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has there been an increase in freight earnings by the Canadian National Railways Newfoundland services, since the date the Canadian National Railways assumed control of the Newfoundland Railway, to the present date?
2.	If so, what has the yearly increase amounted to?
3.	Has there been an increase in passenger earnings?
4.	If so, what has the increase amounted to?
5.	Is it proposed to increase the number of locomotives and rolling stock of the Canadian National Railways services in Newfoundland?
6.	If so, in what manner?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The railway does not publish freight earnings and expense figures on a territorial basis. However, as an indication of the trend of Canadian National Railways business in Newfoundland, the following table shows freight train miles for 1950, 1951, and eleven months for 1952. Comparable figures for 1949 are not available.
(1)	(2)	Inc. 2	(3)	(4)	Inc. 4Year	Year	over	11 Mos.	11 Mos.	overFreight	1950	1951	1	1951	1952	3Frt. Train Miles	949,311	1,053,461	11-0	974,245	1,089,778	11-9Gross Ton Miles	344,086,252	391,793,652	13-9	365,683,596	423,323,904	15-83.	Yes, with the exception that to October 31, 1952, 1952 is slightly under 1951.4.	The railway does not publish passenger earnings and expense figures on a territorial basis. However, as an indication of the trend of Canadian National Railways business in Newfoundland, the following table shows passenger train miles for 1950, 1951, and eleven months for 1952. Comparable figures for 1949 are not available.(1)	(2)	Inc. 2	(3)	(4)	Inc. 4Year	Year	over	11 Mos.	11 Mos.	overPassenger	1950	1951	1	1951	1952	3Pass. Train Miles	336,980	346,437	2-8	316,581	318,714	0-7Pass. Car Miles	3,345,822	3,682,657	10-1	3,368,272	3,555,387	5-65.	Yes.6.	Current new equipment orders are: 9 diesel locomotives, 100 box cars, 150 flat cars, 75 gondola cars, 50 refrigerator cars, 12 snowplows;Current conversion program is:	1 dining
car from coach, 5 cabooses from box cars, 31 work equipment cars from freight cars.
Approximate estimated cost $5,152,000.


T. EATON COMPANY, CHURCHILL
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Are military vehicles and personnel being used to transport merchandise tor the T. Eaton Company Limited, from the railway station at Churchill, Manitoba, to the commissary at Fort Churchill?
2.	If so, by what authority and under what terms?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	No. However, twice weekly there is a run from the station at Fort Churchill to the commissary store, a distance of five miles, to pick up and deliver supplies. Since there is no express delivery, parcels which have been expressed to service p-r-'sonnel are also

picked up and left at the commissary where they are collected by their owners. This arrangement, which is a convenience for all personnel stationed at Fort Churchill, does not necessitate the use of additional service personnel or vehicles.
2.	Not applicable.



H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;  CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

Mr. Balcom:: What is the number of civilians (a) male; (b) female, employed at H.M.C. dockyard, including the magazines, armament depot and Shearwater?


Mr. Blanchette:: As at October 31, 1952:
Male Female Total
H.M.C. Dockyard,
Halifax (including the magazines and
armament depot) ..	3,178 381 3,559
H.M.C.S. Shearwater . .	383	60	4433,561	441	4,002



RETIRED FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the government given consideration to the provision of a cost of living bonus or other increase in the pensions of federal civil servants already retired? If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Lesage:: The government's policy in connection with the granting of a cost of living bonus to superannuated civil servants has been stated many times in the House of Commons and in answers to questions. A complete statement was given by the Minister of Finance on January 28, 1949 (see Hansard for that date, page 42).



NO. 16 REGIONAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, REGINA

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	When was No. 16 regional ordnance depot established in Regina?
2.	What was the original purchase price of the building and property?
3.	Is the regional depot now being transferred to Winnipeg? If so, for what reason?
4.	How much will it cost in total, including the cost of new buildings, to transfer this regional depot from Regina to Winnipeg?
5.	From the military standpoint, will the new Winnipeg depot be able to serve any function, not now performed by the depot established in Regina?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	January 1, 1946.
2.	$700,000.
3.	The army ordnance depot in Regina will continue to function there but ordnance depot facilities in the west will be increased by the addition of a depot in Winnipeg.
4.	Transfer from the depot in Regina to the new depot in Winnipeg will be limited to the movement of approximately 50 selected personnel at a cost estimated at $8,810. These 50 personnel will be necessary in order to enable the new depot to function with efficiency from the outset.
5.	The new depot in Winnipeg will enable army installations in Manitoba and the western part of Ontario to be served at reduced transportation costs. In addition, the new depot in Winnipeg will be used for supply of Fort Churchill which, at the present time, is supplied from central ordnance depots located in eastern Canada.



DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS-PERSONNEL

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many officers of all forces are attached to, or stationed at, national defence headquarters?
2.	How many non-commissioned ranks of all forces are attached to, or stationed at, national defence headquarters?
3.	How many civilians are attached to, or stationed at, national defence headquarters?
Questions


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: (All answers are as at Nov. 30, 1952)
1.	1,511.
2.	1,335.
3.	4,389.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What is the strength, at the latest available date, of the Canadian navy, army and air force?
2.	What were the enrolments in each of these services during the previous year?
3.	(a) What were the discharges in each of these services during the previous year? (b) How many of these discharges were classed as desertion or due to absence without leave?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Strength: as at 30 November, 1952.
Navy	 14,928
Army	 47,702
R.C.A.F	 37,962
100,592
2.	Enrolments: from 1 December, 1951 to 30 November, 1952.
Navy	 3,835
Army	 13,134
R.C.A.F	 12,310
29,279
3.	(a) Releases: including deaths, from 1 December, 1951 to 30 November, 1952.
Navy	 1,398
Army	 9,117
R.C.A.F	 3,286
13,801
(b) None. In accordance with service practice, deserters are not considered to have been released or discharged from the service. Total desertions not subsequently apprehended or returned to duty were 2,005. The offence of absence without leave covers absences as short as one hour and most cases are dealt with summarily. Consequently no record1 of these is kept at national defence headquarters except in instances involving trial by court martial.



CANADIAN NICKEL COMPANY, CHURCHILL

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Are employees of the Canadian Nickel Company being housed by the Department of National Defence at Fort Churchill, Manitoba?
2.	If so, under what terms and for what reasons?
3.	Are vehicles owned by the Canadian Nickel Company being serviced by the Department of National Defence at Fort Churchill, Manitoba?
4.	If so, under what terms and for what reasons?

Questions


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Nine employees of the Canadian Nickel Company are housed in single accommodation provided by the Department of National Defence at Fort Churchill. They are charged at the rate of $4 per day. They are given single accommodation by DND because no other accommodation is available to them near their stores and aircraft which are used to supply their workings at Ferguson Lake.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.



INDIAN HOSPITAL, MOOSE FACTORY

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Has building started on the retaining wall to protect the Indian hospital building at Moose Factory in the James Bay area?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such wall?
3.	Who owned the land on the island where this hospital was built?
4.	On whose authority was the hospital built on this island?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The land was purchased by the crown from the Hudson's Bay Company.
4.	Order in council P.C. 1363 of April 6, 1948.



NELSON, B.C., ARMOURY

Mr. Herridge:: What amount has been expended for the repairs or improvements to the armoury at Nelson, British Columbia, for the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: The total amount expended for repairs or improvements to the armouries at Nelson, B.C. from April 1, 1946 to December 19, 1952, is $5,759.27.



STEVENSON AIRFIELD


Mr. Bryce:: Were the hours of the cleaners, working for the Department of National Defence at Stevenson airfield, increased from 44 to 48 hours per week on the 1st of November, 1952?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: No.



CANADIAN ARMY


Mr. Goode:: 1.	How many officers are on strength in the regular Canadian army?
2.	Of these, how many were promoted from the ranks?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	5,066 at November 30, 1952.
2.	From October 1, 1946, the date which marks the commencement of the Canadian

Army active force, to November 30, 1952, 626 officers have been commissioned from the ranks.
The present system of machine records has been in effect since October 1, 1946. To ascertain the number of officers who have been commissioned from the ranks prior to that date would require a manual check of over 5,000 personal files.



JEEPS FOR FORCES IN EUROPE-WITHDRAWAL FROM RESERVE FORMATIONS

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	Have jeeps been withdrawn from Canadian reserve formations in order to equip (a) Canadian forces in Europe; (b) forces in Europe of other NATO countries?
2.	If so, have these reserve units been issued with identical or similar vehicles as replacements?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	All second war patterns of jeeps (cars 5-cwt) in the Canadian army have been offered as mutual aid to other north Atlantic countries.
2.	These vehicles are being replaced by improved vehicles of a similar type out of new production and by standard commercial vehicles where they will be more suitable for the task to be performed. It is expected that this replacement will be completed within the next three months.



PETAWAWA-NAMES ON PAYROLLS

Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	Were any names of persons listed on Petawawa payrolls which did not represent living human beings?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	At what rate of pay were they listed?
4.	Was remuneration in cash or by cheque?
5.	If the latter, who cashed the cheques?
6.	Were deductions made for income tax purposes at source?
7.	If so, what claims, if any, were made for exemption because of (a) married status; (b) other dependents?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, as this question concerns matters in which the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice are all three interested, I believe it would be appropriate that I answer it. The answer to the first question is "no" and therefore the remaining questions are not applicable.
As this answer will appear to differ from a two-line statement in the Currie report tabled on December 15 last, I think I should state the facts in this connection so far as it has been possible to ascertain them. I make this qualification because a part of the information is based on statements secured by the police from Sergeant Young who is now in

the penitentiary and it is not possible to check all of them from official records.
In February, 1951, it was decided that an area in what is known as camp X at Peta-wawa should be cleared as quickly as possible. Teams and teamsters were needed, but only three farmers with their teams were found to be available for hire, even though they were to be put on the payroll at the highest rate authorized for tradesmen, namely, that of bricklayers at $1.50 per hour. As more were needed, Staff Sergeant Young hired horses on his own account from a civilian in Pembroke at $1 per horse per day plus feed and care, arranged with eight labourers to act as teamsters and had them placed on the payroll at $1.50 an hour as if they themselves were supplying the horses. The men kept their regular pay of 75 cents per hour plus 5 cents additional or 80 cents per hour and turned over the difference to Young.
Captain Baldock shared in this illegal profit, as he did in profits derived from certain other offences at Petawawa. There was no collusion between Young and the farmers who brought their own teams, and Young received no rebate from them. Both Baldock and Young have since been convicted and are at present serving penitentiary sentences.
The names on the payroll were the names of labourers who actually existed and who worked as teamsters. There were no false names on the payroll and no horses on the payroll. I am further advised that the customary income tax deductions were made against each one of these teamsters in accordance with his own personal family status.


Mrs. Fairclough:: What I am interested in learning is to whom the 70 cents a day, or whatever it was, was charged for purposes of income tax. Was it charged to the teamster or was it charged to the owner of the horse?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Deductions were made against each one of these labourers as if he were getting $1.50 an hour. The deduction was made in accordance with his own personal family status, whether he was single or married and had or did not have children, at the appropriate rates for that status. They have a credit against income tax which bears marks of the irregularities connected with the way in which the whole thing was engineered.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It sounds like a good deal for the owner of the horse.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.
Questions
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT PROPERTIES-[DOT] MINERAL RIGHTS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Who owns the mineral rights on soldier settlement and V.L.A. properties?
2.	Who owns the mineral rights on soldier settlement lands reverting to the crown because of default in payment?
3.	Do these mineral rights go with the property when it is later disposed of under the V.L.A.?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	Any mineral rights acquired in the purchase of land under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act are regarded as acquired by the crown in the right of Canada and are under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of Resources and Development. Any mineral rights acquired in the purchase of land under the provisions of the Veterans Land Act are acquired by and are under the control and administration of the director, the Veterans Land Act, in his capacity as an agent of the crown. When lands are sold under the provisions of the Veterans Land Act the sale includes any mineral rights held by the director.
2.	The crown in the right of Canada.
3.	Reverted soldier settlement lands are not disposed of under the Veterans Land Act. They are disposed of under the Soldier Settlement Act. When any lands are sold under the Soldier Settlement Act no mines and minerals are included.
4.	Because of the restrictions incorporated in section 57 of the Soldier Settlement Act.



YARMOUTH-BAR HARBOR FERRY  COMMITTEE

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What are the names, addresses and occupation of the members of the committee which was established to study the economic and operative features of the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor, Maine, ferry?
2.	When and where did this committee meet?
3.	Has this committee submitted a written report, and if so, where is this report available?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Angus McGugan, commissioner, Canadian maritime commission (chairman). The Hon. Harold Connolly, minister of health and welfare, Halifax, N.S. T. J. Courtney, director, bureau of information, Halifax, N.S.
S.	W. Fairweather, vice-president, department of research and development, Canadian National Railways. W. J. Fisher, director, traffic services branch, Canadian maritime commission. Alex Watson, marine superintendent, Department of Transport. B. Carwardine, mechanical superintendent of dredges, Department of Public Works.
2.	(i) 10th January, 1950, Ottawa; (ii) 24th February, 1950, Montreal; (iii) 13th March,

Income Tax Act
1950,	Halifax; (iv) 3rd April, 1950, Portland, Me.; (v) 10th May, 1950, Ottawa; (vi) 20th July, 1950, Montreal; (vii) 8th August, 1950, Ottawa; (viii), 27th September, 1950, Bar Harbor, Me.; (ix) 27th October, 1950, Montreal; (x) 4th July, 1952, Montreal; (xi) 4th December, 1952, Portland; (xii) 5th December, 1952, Portland.
3.	No formal written report has been prepared.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	How many cigarettes were imported into Canada in 1951 and 1952?
2.	What were the brand names and what were the quantities of each brand?
3.	What was the amount of revenue to Canada?
4.	What was the weight of tobacco in cigarettes imported?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



STATISTICS FORMS

Mr. Lennard:: E60 A	E49
1.	How many of forms 30M-4-51 and 25M-1-51 have been printed to date for the bureau of statistics?
2.	What was the cost?
3.	When were they put into use?
4.	How many have been recorded?
5.	Of what value are these records?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence from January 1,
1951,	to date, exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof and the government of the province of New Brunswick or any department thereof, relative to the taking over df an area in Queens and Sunbury counties, New Brunswick, as a military training area.
He said: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you allow this motion to stand. I think the minister has good and sufficient reasons for wanting it to stand, and I am quite willing that it should.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



INCOME TAX ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability

of introducing legislation amending the Income Tax Act so as to remove the 4 per cent limitation from the section which makes provision for the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, there was in the former Income War Tax Act, and there is in the present Income Tax Act, a provision respecting the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes. This has been in effect since 1943. However, that provision is limited by at least three main conditions. In the first place, those medical expenses which can be deducted are only those expenses defined as such in the Income Tax Act. That definition was quite narrow at first. It has been broadened a bit from time to time but it is still, in the view of many of us, altogether too narrow. At any rate, that is one of the limitations upon the right to deduct medical expenses from one's taxable income before computing income tax.
A second condition which is attached to this provision is what is known as a ceiling. In other words, right from the start there has been an upper limit as to the gross or aggregate amount that any taxpayer can claim as a deduction for income tax purposes. That amount has been changed on two or three occasions. Indeed, a year ago the ceiling was raised so that it now is $1,500 for a taxpayer who is on a single basis and $2,000 for a taxpayer who is on a married basis, plus $500 per dependent up to a limit of four dependents, or a limit of $2,000 for one's dependents. That is the second limitation on this provision, namely, the ceiling, the present terms of which I have just indicated.
I said a moment ago that some of us are not satisfied with the narrowness of the definition of medical expenses. We feel that it should be much wider, and I want to make it perfectly clear that, although I believe that the definition should be broadened to include other drugs than those now covered, to include spectacles, hearing aids and other such items, nevertheless that request is not contained in the motion now before the house, for the simple reason that it is wise to make one request of this kind at a time.
With respect to the second condition, namely, that of a ceiling on the amount that can be charged, I support the principle of there being a ceiling. Prior to the change that was made last year I felt that the ceiling was not high enough, particularly in view of the increases that had taken place in the cost of medical care, but so far as I can see the figures that are set out now as a ceiling are more or less satisfactory. Therefore I am not asking for any change in that part of this provision.

I come now to the third of the conditions or limitations which is attached to the provision for deducting medical expenses. The third provision is what is sometimes referred to as a floor or, in other words, a stipulation that there can be deducted from taxable income only that portion of medical expenses which is in excess of 4 per cent of net income. When this provision was first written into the Income War Tax Act by Mr. Ilsley in 1943 that figure was 5 per cent. In 1944 the figure was reduced to 4 per cent. The story of that reduction is very interesting for, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, the budget resolutions of 1944 did not forecast any such reduction of the 5 per cent figure. There was, however, considerable clamour on the floor of the house for the wiping out of that floor or reducing it, and in response to the debate that took place on that occasion Mr. Ilsley came back later in the same session and reduced the floor to 4 per cent. However, there it has remained ever since 1944.
As hon. members know, the 4 per cent floor relates to one's net income, not just to one's taxable income. Thus, if a person is on an annual salary of $4,000 a year and is a married man, although his statutory exemption is $2,000-which means that he pays his income tax on only the other $2,000 -nevertheless, when it comes to computing his income tax and to ascertaining whether his medical expenses are of any help to him, he can enter on the income tax form only that portion of his medical expenses in excess of 4 per cent of the total of his income- namely, 4 per cent of $4,000. In that case the first $160 does not count. It is only the portion of medical expenses above $160 in that example that can be allowed as a deduction for income tax purposes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this resolution which is before the house relates to one point and to one point only, namely that 4 per cent floor. It asks that the 4 per cent floor be wiped out and that consideration be given to the necessary legislation to make it possible for taxpayers to deduct their medical expenses right from the first dollar up to the limits that are set out in the act. It is well known to all members of the house and well known to the people of Canada generally that that right-the right to deduct for income tax purposes right from the first dollar up to the limits specified-is accorded to donations to churches and charitable organizations. All we are asking for in this motion is that the same privilege, the same right that is accorded to contributions that are made voluntarily, be accorded
Income Tax Act
to those medical expenses which are met by taxpayers involuntarily or in other words because of necessity.
I am satisfied that there is wide support for this principle, for this request that medical expenses be put on the same basis as charitable donations, and that the 4 per cent floor be wiped out. In support of my contention that there is wide agreement with the request I am making, I remind the house that last year on March 26, 1952, this house passed unanimously a motion in my name which was similar to the one now before the house. I point out that the wording of last year's motion was slightly different from the wording of this year's motion and may I say immediately what the reason for the change is. The reason is that last year the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, who is now the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), in my view misinterpreted my motion in that he thought it was asking for something more than just the removal of the 4 per cent floor. He thought that I was asking for a complete removal of the ceiling as well. I have reworded the motion this year to make it clear that it is not asking for the removal of the ceiling. I would like to see the definition of medical expenses broadened but this motion just asks for one change, namely the removal of the 4 per cent floor.
Last year, once it was made clear on the floor of the house that that was all that was intended in the terms of my motion, the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance said in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that the motion was acceptable. As a result of that indication of acceptance by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, the motion received support in all sections of the house. Members on the opposition side were all in favour of it and a number of members on the government side, who on previous occasions were not so vocal, indicated their support last year by speaking to my motion. I refer particularly to the member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), the member for Charlevoix (Mr. Mal-tais), the member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite), as well as the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. All of them spoke and either directly or by inference gave support to my motion calling as it did on that occasion for the removal of the 4 per cent floor. As a result of that support in every part of the house, the debate was a rather short one and it ended by the motion being carried unanimously by this House of Commons.

Income Tax Act
I made it clear during the course of the debate that I knew what that motion meant. It meant that we were asking the government to give consideration to the advisability of making that change. No one in this House of Commons thought it meant that we were giving the government the kind of direction which it absolutely had to carry out; but it is also true, and we have made this clear in the house, that whenever a private member's motion asks for consideration of something toward which the government is not favourably disposed, that motion is either withdrawn by a government member at the request of the government, defeated, or talked out. I can find in the time that I have been here no record of a private member's motion asking for consideration of monetary or budgetary matters being passed unless the government was actually favourably disposed toward the substance of the motion. I think it was quite proper for the press of this country, Liberal press as well as opposition press, to assume as it did from the passing of that motion on March 26, 1952, that one of the changes which could be anticipated in the budget that was brought down on April 8 would be the elimination of that 4 per cent floor. As everyone knows, when we got that budget on April 8 there was no change whatsoever in the floor. The minister, on the other hand, did make a change in one other aspect of the legislation, a change which did not concern many of us too much-a change in the ceiling; but he insisted that the floor had to stand. The minister did not like it because we moved a motion of no confidence later on with respect to the matter and because we berated1 the government both inside and outside the house for ignoring the wish of parliament in respect of this matter.
I want to tell the minister today that for him to stand, if he chooses to do so, and say that the government carried out the terms of that vote and did give consideration to the idea is not good enough; and in my view it is not playing fair either with parliament or with the people of this country. The fact is that he went against the wish of this house. As the minister knows, the year before last I had a similar motion before the house relating to income tax deductibility. It dealt with the deductibility of trade union dues for income tax purposes. It is strange how things work in this parliament, because on that occasion my motion was defeated by a vote in this house on February 26, 1951, and it looked as though we were faced with a much longer battle to get deductibility for trade union dues. But, lo and behold, on April 10 of that same session-April 10, 1952 -when the Minister of Finance brought in

his budget he made provision for deductibility for trade union dues despite the fact the government majority had voted it down on February 26, 1951. Last year the tables were turned. The house voted1 for the idea on March 26-the idea of deductibility of medical expenses right from the first dollar- yet the government rejected that wish when the minister brought down his budget on April 8.
Well, I do not know what is going to happen to my motion today but I certainly hope-and perhaps one can express such a hope with a little more confidence in view of the fact that everyone expects an election before long-that whatever happens to my motion today the government will act on this reasonable request, this request for fair treatment, this request which all Liberals in this house supported last year, this request which newspapers from one end of this country to the other agree is fair and should be supported. I hope action will be taken on it in this year's budget and that the 4 per cent floor will be wiped out so that taxpayers will be allowed to deduct their medical expenses right from the first dollar in the same way as applies in the case of donations to charity.
Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions, and this has been up quite often, as ministers and other members on the government side know, I have placed certain figures on the record and I think I should put a few examples on today. It is necessary to keep putting these examples on the record because income tax rates keep changing and the examples put on the record a year ago do not apply now. I would like to take a few examples to indicate what happens as between medical expenses on the one hand and charitable donations on the other. The examples I have worked out are on the basis of the income tax rates now in effect for the year 1953. In other words, based on the rates in the latest office consolidation of the Income Tax Act, which are the rates for a full year as given in the columns that the minister placed on Hansard on April 8 last year, I find that a married couple without children, having an income of $200 per month or $2,400 a year, are treated in this way. If they make contributions to charity in the amount of $200 per year, their income tax saving as a result of the deductibility that is granted to them will be $38 for the year 1953.	1 have taken
into account both the general income tax and the old age security tax. The exact figures are these. Without any deductions, they would pay $68 general tax and $8 old age security tax, or a total of $76. But if they

give away $200 voluntarily, they will pay only $38 and thus get tax relief to the amount of $38.
If that same couple is faced with medical bills that amount to the same figure, $200, an amount they are required to spend whether or not they wish to do so, the tax saving they will get on the basis of this year's figures is only $19.76. The reason for the difference between the $38 of tax relief for the $200 given away voluntarily and only $19.76 tax relief for the $200 spent involuntarily on medical expenses is the 4 per cent floor.
Let me take another example. This time it is a married couple with two children where the total income is $300 per month or $3,600 per year. Their total tax at this year's rates, without any deductions, would be $253. If they gave away $300 in the course of a year, the tax saving which will be granted them under the law as it now stands is $63. But if that same couple with two children and that income has medical expenses of the same amount, $300 a year, their income tax relief will be only $32.76. How can anyone, Mr. Speaker, justify that discrimination? How can the minister justify the fact that he gives to people $63 of tax relief for giving away $300 but gives them only $32.76 of tax relief if they are faced with the necessity of spending that much on medical expenses?
I go on to the case of a couple with an income of $5,000 a year, again with two children. Their total tax, without any deduction, would be $568. If they give away $500 during the year, their tax relief for that generosity will be $120. But if the same couple, in the same circumstances, is faced with $500 of medical expenses, their tax relief is only $72.
In the name of simple justice, Mr. Speaker, in the name of simple elemental fairness, we are asking that these two things be put on the same basis. I am not complaining about the deductibility granted charitable expenses. I quite agree with it, and I support the idea. I support also the ceiling which the minister has imposed upon the amount of charitable donations for which one can claim tax relief. But how one can consider charitable donations in one way and medical expenses in another is beyond my powers to fathom, and I think is beyond the understanding of people in all walks of life in all parts of this country. I have done quite a bit of figuring in this connection because it strikes me that, in the words of the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), who spoke about this matter on a former occasion, it is the little fellow who would really be helped by our proposal that the 4 per cent floor be wiped out.
Income Tax Act
As a matter of fact, if you take the examples I have given, you will note that the percentage increase in relief that is afforded goes down as you get up into these upper brackets, which is as it should be. This would not be the case if there were no ceiling, but there is a ceiling and I have no quarrel with that.
Let us look now at the little fellow with an income of $2,400 a year who is married and has two children. How he gets by, none of us really knows. Supposing there is such a person and he has no deductions, his income tax for 1953 will be $17 general tax and $2 old age security tax, or a total of $19. If that man gives away $100 in the course of a year -how he could do it I do not know-he would have tax relief for the full amount of his $19. He would have no tax to pay, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would thus contribute $19 to him for his generosity in giving away $100. But if that man with $2,400 a year, with a wife and two children, is faced, as in most cases he probably is, with medical expenses of $100 a year, how much tax relief does he get? He gets 76 cents. Tax relief in the amount of $19 is afforded if he gives away $100, but only 76 cents of tax relief is afforded if he is faced with medical bills of the same amount.
Now, that illustrates the point that it is the little fellow who would really be helped by the proposal that we put before the house at this time. I could give other examples, as I have done on former occasions. Really, my only purpose in doing it again is to bring those simple examples up to date in the light of the tax rates that will apply for 1953.
However, I feel that I should perhaps deal with some of the arguments that have been put forth from the government side on former occasions in opposition to this measure. There have never been any arguments against it from the backbenchers on the government side. They support it, but on occasion the Minister of Finance and his former parliamentary assistant have opposed the substance of this measure. Indeed last year, although the parliamentary assistant seemed to favour it when he spoke on March 26, when he defended the government's failure to make the change in the budget he opposed this whole idea in substance.
One of the arguments put forward by those who oppose this matter in substance is that 4 per cent is an average amount that Canadians spend on medical expenses, and therefore there is no point to allowing that as a deduction. The first thing I want to say about the use of that phrase "average" is in the form of a story, and it happens to be a

Income Tax Act
story which I understand the minister himself once told to a gentleman whose loss we in this parliament and in this country feel very greatly. I refer to the severe loss we have sustained in the untimely passing of Dr. Clark, the former deputy minister of finance. His contribution to this country was an outstanding one. However, what came to my mind was a story I ran across some time ago. It is said that the Minister of Finance was one day having a little fun with his then deputy minister who was talking about averages. The story as I heard it is that the Minister of Finance asked Dr. Clark if he had heard about the fellow six feet tall who drowned in a lake the average depth of which was only five feet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The story was about the economist six feet tall who drowned in water that had an average depth of five feet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for confirming the authenticity of the story, and underlining the fact that it was an economist he was worried about. I suppose ministers of finance have to be regarded as economists or pseudo-economists, at any rate. I would suggest there might be some danger in the story boomeranging, and the minister himself being drowned because of his reliance on this argument about averages.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is a very good swimmer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not swimming that is required this year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is skating.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not swimming that is required this year by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues; it is skating on the government's very thin ice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is a good skater, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that he is a good skater, but even good skaters go through when the ice gets thin.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance, in line with the story that he himself told to the late Dr. Clark, that there is real point to the story; that it is no solution to people who are faced with heavy medical expenses to tell them that a portion of that is the average spent by Canadians. These people are still under financial strain because of these expenses. If there is to be any sense of fairness or justice in income tax legislation, I suggest that we should apply that fairness and that justice to these people.
The fact is that a great many people have no medical expenses at all during the course of a year. They are very fortunate. There are not many who go through life without

medical expenses, and in the years in which medical expenses do catch up with them we think that they should get the fairest possible treatment from the income tax authorities. But just as we would do that for people in the years when medical expenses do catch up with them, so we are concerned this year with the people who this year will be faced with heavy medical expenses whether the minister calls them average or not.
In connection with this whole talk about averages, might I point out that no such rule applies to charitable donations. Why do you apply one rule to medical expenses-


Douglas Charles Abbott: If we applied the average to charitable donations it would be only about one per cent of income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, whatever the figure is, I would like to see a substantiation of it. By the way, does that include all the tag days? If there is such a figure why does the minister apply the rule in one case and not apply it in the other? Similarly I might ask him, if he takes the view that income tax allowance is to obtain once you get over the average, why does he not apply it to the cost of living? I submit that $2,000, which is the total amount allowed a married couple today, is below the average cost of living. Therefore, if he is going to apply this rule of the average he must, without delay, raise the total exemption that is allowed both to single persons and to married people before they pay income tax. Therefore I strongly urge the minister to rethink his whole position about averages, to take to his own heart the story he told Dr. Clark, and not to press that phase of the argument any more.
Another argument put forward, of course, is that it would cost money; that it would deprive the treasury of a certain substantial sum of money. The figure put forward last year was in terms of $40 million odd. I am still not satisfied with the way in which that figure was computed. The then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance went into it in some detail on the floor of the house. He was also good enough to let me have the rather large chart on which the calculating had been done to obtain that figure. Basically, however, what seemed to me to be wrong with it was the assumption that to wipe out this 4 per cent floor immediately removed for income tax purposes 4 per cent of the national income of the country. The flaw in that argument, as I see it, is that there are a great many people who have no medical expenses at all in the course of a year, and many people who do have medical expenses are so far below the income tax exemptions that they do not get into the income tax paying class anyway. Therefore

on that basis I am not satisfied that the $40 million figure that the parliamentary assistant gave us is a correct one. But even if it is, I suggest to the Minister of Finance that his government has cried "wolf, wolf" about the loss of revenue and the danger of a deficit in his budget a little too often.
The people of this country are not impressed by that argument any more. They have been hearing those cries for some time. We cannot afford this, we cannot afford that, but somehow or other we continue to afford some rather expensive items, very expensive in some instances, and still the minister comes out with huge surpluses. The people of this country also know that although the government argues that there cannot be reductions in taxation in the years in between elections, come an election year and some very substantial reductions seem to be possible. Well, I am counting on the fact that everyone expects this to be an election year and that it will result in a change of thinking on the part of the minister with respect to this matter to such an extent that he will not be concerned about the amount of money involved in wiping out this 4 per cent floor.
But I say again, even if wiping out the 4 per cent floor does cost $30 million or $40 million by way of loss of revenue to the treasury, even if it has to be made up in some other way, is it not supposed to be one of the cardinal principles of taxation policy that it should be on the basis of absolute fairness? If that is the case, I am sure the people of this country agree with me, indeed I am sure all hon. members agree with me, that it is not fair not to allow those first dollars of medical expenses as deductions for income tax purposes.
I named a few moments ago the members of this house on the government side who rose to their feet in the debate last year and supported my motion. Some of them and some others met me out in the hall afterwards and spoke to me in terms that I am not used to around this house. They thought that I had done a good service to bring in that motion; that it was a very good idea. There is no doubt in my mind that it always had support amongst all the members of this house, even though government supporters did not say so until they had been given the cue from the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
As I have already said, it received wide support throughout the country in the press of all shades of opinion and amongst Canadians generally. Why was there that support? Well, because there is a good deal of essential decency in the hearts of members of parliament and in the hearts of the Canadian 68108-57i
Income Tax Act
people. That essential decency in these times says that when people are faced with medical expenses they deserve every possible consideration, they deserve fairness even from the income tax collectors. For my part and speaking for those of us in this group, we feel that even this is not enough. So far as medical expenses are concerned we feel, and we will come to it again later, there should be a complete program of national health insurance. This is only a drop in the bucket, only a step in the right direction, but it is a step in the direction of fairness, and I plead as strongly as I can with the house on this occasion not to backtrack, not to go back on what it did last year, but rather to pass this motion once again, and this time when this motion has been passed by this house I hope that the government will not say that negative consideration is sufficient, but rather that it will recognize that the house really believes in the principle of fairness with regard to deductibility of medical expenses, and that in this year's budget, which no doubt we will get just before an election, there will be a provision to wipe out that 4 per cent floor to permit people to deduct medical expenses right from the first dollar.
Before I resume my seat may I remind hon. members that I said in the early part of my remarks that the definition of medical expenses is really too narrow. You can deduct money that you pay to doctors, nurses and hospitals; you can deduct money that you pay for certain appliances; you can deduct money that you spend on certain specified drugs, but there are a great many things even in a strictly medical line which are not included.
It is also to be pointed out that when there is illness there are other expenses that face a family, and none of these of course is allowed. One of the ways in which the government could help to make up for the fact of the many expenses, extra help, extra food and all these things that come into the story of illness, is by at least removing this 4 per cent floor. May I remind the minister also that the provision he made two years ago to include insulin has, for many taxpayers, been inoperative because, while they may spend a good deal during the course of a year, if they do not get their expenditures over the 4 per cent level they receive no advantage at all. To describe as average the expense a person faces, when he has some illness which necessitates taking expensive drugs during the whole of his lifetime, is I suggest to be callous and indifferent to a very human situation.
So on all counts I suggest that never was a more reasonable request made to the House of Commons than that contained in

Income Tax Act
this motion. And, just as the house passed it last year, I hope it will pass it this year, and that the government will act upon the wishes of the house and make this change in this year's budget.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed out, this motion is in substantially the same terms as the motion he presented to the house last year and which, as he has indicated, was passed by the house, and without any objection on my part.
I was not able to be present at the debate, but my then parliamentary assistant did discuss the matter and did indicate that the government had no objection to the passing of the motion.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Would you have made objection if you had been present?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I would not, because I gave my parliamentary assistant instructions that I did not oppose the motion, and my reason for not opposing it was based upon the terms of the motion itself.
The motion offered at that time was in most respects exactly the same as that now before the house, namely:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation amending the Income Tax Act so as to remove the four per cent limitation from the section which makes provision for the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes.
Now, in the light of subsequent events, 3 think I was wrong in taking the course I did take, in indicating to my parliamentary assistant that there should be no objection to the passing of the motion. I did it because I felt that it would be wrong and illogical for a minister of finance, at the time budget matters were under consideration, to refuse to give consideration to any proposal.
Every day I am receiving proposals from taxpayers as to how tax laws should be amended; and on that occasion I felt that, in the terms of the resolution as framed, it should be allowed to pass. I must confess that, in my innocence, I did not realize that it would be represented to the country as being the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons that this should be done.
We know how these resolutions are passed. I was not in the house that day, and I do not know what the attendance was, but I assume it was perhaps average-or perhaps even less than average, because it was a private members' day. In any case it was passed without objection from the government. But because in its terms it is, I think, clearly a

resolution which relates to the imposition of a tax, then, as we know, under our constitution proposals of that kind can be introduced only by a member of the government on recommendation of His Excellency.
Now, my hon. friend has said that this was not put before parliament as a direction to the minister. Well, I certainly think he is right in that; but he and his supporters have done their best to persuade the people of Canada that it was a direction.
It is all right to pass resolutions couched in these terms, relating to budget matters, if it is understood that they do indicate what they say, in the terms indicated, namely that the government should give consideration to certain matters. But the ultimate responsibility as to the fairness and the desirability of making these budget changes must rest with the government.
My hon. friend has, and quite accurately I think, outlined the history of this exemption, and the basis upon which it is granted. It was introduced by my predecessor, Mr. Ilsley, and the government of which he formed a part; and, as I have very good reason to know, he felt very strongly that provisions of this kind should contain a floor. There is a provision in the United States of, I believe, 5 per cent, and the ceiling there is somewhat different. I am told there is no deduction allowed in New Zealand or in the United Kingdom-but of course now in the United Kingdom, under the new health services, I would suppose that most medical expenses are paid out of the health fund.
I should like to take a few moments to indicate the philosophy behind the provision for a floor. In common with a good many other people in this country, and in the house, I have spent money during the last twenty-five years in raising a family. Unfortunately they are getting pretty close to a grown-up stage; but in the course of those years I have had to spend varying amounts in each year for dental care, for check-ups, for childhood diseases and so on. We have been extremely fortunate because none of our children has had serious illnesses, nor have my wife and I.
During those years however we have in each year paid out money in varying amounts. Perhaps sometimes it would be a few hundred dollars, and sometimes somewhat less than that-for these periodical check-ups, general child care and the like.
I see no reason in the world why I, or anybody else, should be in a position to deduct those normal expenses-and I prefer to use the word "normal" rather than "average". I see no reason why I should be permitted to

deduct those normal expenses from my income before calculating my income tax, any more than I should be entitled to deduct expenditures for clothing necessary to keep the children warm, or food necessary to keep them alive.
I think it is unsound, in principle, that normal living expenses of the individual should be paid out of income before tax.
That is the basis upon which the floor has been established. It may be, as I say, that the floor is too high. Perhaps it should be less than 4 per cent. It started out at 5 per cent, and it has been lowered to 4 per cent. I am quite prepared to look at that question again.
I am quite prepared to look at the question of whether there should be a floor at all.
However, I have endeavoured to indicate why I believe it is essentially fair that there should be some floor. Because one of the jobs that any minister of finance has to do is to try to spread the tax burden, which amounts now to something like four billions. He must try to spread the tax burden as fairly and equitably as possible among all taxpayers. If one taxpayer gets a concession or a deduction, then some other taxpayer must provide those moneys.
My hon. friend does not quarrel with the ceiling; he has never quarrelled with that. There may be a question as to whether the ceiling should be raised. I have a perfectly open mind as to that, and it is a matter of opinion. But quite obviously, both in my view and in his, there should be a ceiling. Otherwise the benefits of a deduction of this kind would be quite disproportionate as between those in the lower and others in the higher income tax brackets.
The question as to the definition and the eligibility of various expenses which would qualify for deductions is constantly under review. From time to time we have made additions in respect of the classifications of drugs and other expenses which can be claimed as deductions.
Those, then, are the principles upon which these deductions can be claimed. As I say, I have always felt that to be fair as between the different taxpayers in the country there should be some minimum below which a claim cannot be made for deduction of these expenses.
Then there is an added reason-and perhaps this is not an entirely compelling one: I refer to that of administration. I am informed that it would be extremely difficult-virtually impossible-to check claims for medical deductions if every claim, no matter how small, were eligible as a tax deduction. The case may not be completely analogous but I think
Income Tax Act
there is considerable parallel between the type of insurance which some of us take out having a $20 or $40 deductible provision. We decide that we will insure ourselves for minor losses in connection with our car or other insurable property and thereby get a much cheaper rate for the greater expenses.
The philosophy behind this actually is that it is quite within the capacity of the ordinary individual to pay the normal expenses incurred for medical care or attention, but when those exceed what can be considered as a normal amount then, and then only, should there be special relief. That is the principle which lies behind the law as it stands now.
I am not going to take a great deal more time discussing the principles underlying this law. The cost of granting blanket exemption of 4 per cent, as suggested by the hon. gentleman, would be quite heavy. I am told that if everyone claimed the 4 per cent deduction, that is to say, 4 per cent on income as indicated under the act, the cost would be something over $100 million. The estimate of some $40 million which was given last year would mean that a lot of people would not claim at all for medical expenses or would be substantially below the 4 per cent. In any case the cost undoubtedly would be substantial. It certainly can be argued that more equitable and widespread tax relief can be afforded in other ways.
At this time of the year budget matters are under consideration. I doubt if many new points could be brought up in connection with this matter.


Mr. Rowe:: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but just for clarification of his remark does he mean that the $100 million would be the cost if everybody deducted 4 per cent, or only those getting hospitalization?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that if the 4 per cent were applied universally on the incomes eligible for tax, in other words if the floor were removed and everybody was able to claim the 4 per cent, it would mean a loss of about $100 million.


William Earl Rowe: Families as healthy as yours would not claim it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is quite true. I hope the majority of families are in that condition and I hope the majority of families are honest. But there are some who might be tempted to claim when perhaps they were not clearly entitled to do so and, as I say, it would be extremely difficult to check all the returns. I think the department would just have to take it on trust. One of the tests of

Income Tax Act
a good law is that it should be fairly and fearlessly administered and that is one of the objections to a blanket exemption of this kind.
As I say, this is the time of year when we are giving consideration to budget matters. I intend again to give this question of deductions for medical expenses the most serious consideration, as I did last year. I said a moment ago that I doubted if anything new could be said on the subject. The hon. gentleman who resumed his seat a moment ago gave a most complete review of the arguments in favour of the proposal which he is putting forward. Other members on the government side have spoken on it; last year my parliamentary assistant spoke on it and I have spoken somewhat more briefly this afternoon.
Owing to assiduous and unremitting labours during the Christmas recess the treasury board was able to complete consideration of the estimates last Friday afternoon and I am now in position to have a fair idea of what our expenditures are likely to be next year. From here on, along with my officials and colleagues, I shall be giving constant attention to the budgetary proposals which I hope to bring before the house as early as possible. In that consideration I shall again carry out the wish expressed by the house in the resolution last year and which is again voiced in the resolution we are now discussing, that the government should give consideration to the advisability of removing-I am shortening it up-this floor.
Unfortunately I am unable to be here this evening. With the assurance which I have just given, that the matter will be considered again this year, I think perhaps it might be appropriate if I were to move the adjournment of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Let someone else speak to the matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister really wants to apply closure in this manner. It does not seem to be in accord with his usual practice. I wish to make a few remarks and I think some of my colleagues will want to say something. I wonder if the minister has strong reasons for applying closure in this fashion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose this is highly
irregular as my motion is not debatable.



CONSERVATION


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I trust that when I have concluded my remarks in support of this resolution, which I consider to be of equal importance to the one just under discussion, no member of cabinet will rise and use the government's majority to forestall further debate. On the previous resolution apparently a number of members wished to express their opinions but they were prevented from doing so by the action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in moving adjournment of the debate. Before going further I wish to say that personally I think it is an unfortunate circumstance, preventing the opposition from expressing their opinioifc in this parliament. It is a poor advertisement for parliament under the conditions that exist in this country at the present time.
I introduced this resolution at the last session, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke at some length on it. I know that quite a number of members were interested in speaking in support of this resolution. They represented all parties in this house but unfortunately, owing to the rules of the house, they were prevented from doing so. It is not my intention to speak at great length, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to repeat any of my previous arguments, but I do wish to deal with the matter from the point of view of the general demand for a policy on national conservation in this country and to indicate to the house the places where that demand comes from and the support for our proposal.
This is a subject in which I am particularly interested, Mr. Speaker, because not only have I been interested in conservation during the whole of my working life but I have practised conservation during the whole of my working period on my property in British Columbia. When speaking in support of this resolution last session, on March 26, 1952, I
Conservation
gave an historical review of the exploitation of natural resources throughout the centuries, and of the movement towards conservation in the United States and in Canada since the early days of this century, and stressed the need for establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use in Canada based on co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and the people of Canada. I suggested an outline of action that should be taken under such a national policy, including: 1. The establishment of sound standards of management and utilization of natural resources as a result of scientific advice and investigation;
2.	The establishment and financing of research work, and the co-ordination of these activities with the work of public organizations and individuals; 3. The development of a co-ordinated educational program aimed at the development of interest and co-operation of all Canadians from early school days on;
4.	A program of co-ordinated publicity that would utilize the facilities of the press, the national film board and public organizations;
5.	The establishment of a uniform law enforcement program in connection with the conservation of wildlife and other resources;
6.	The co-ordination of the activities of all governments, at all levels, with public organizations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when speaking in this debate last session, at page 834 of Hansard, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) had this to say:
This is perhaps one of the most important subjects that this house could deal with.
We agree with him in that statement and we believe that he thinks it is of great importance-and we are glad to know that he recognizes the importance of this subject. However, I was somewhat disappointed, Mr. Speaker, to read in the Gazette of April 24, 1952, the following statement which is entitled "Resources effort 'great'-Winters":
Minister Says Policy Aimed at Development and Prudent Direction
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., April 23-Resources Minister Winters said tonight "very great strides" now are being taken to develop Canada's natural resources, "and to manage them with prudence".
He told the Chamber of Commerce here in a speech prepared for delivery that "there is no lack of a general policy for conservation and resources development", and that there is frequent and cordial co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, and with industry in this field.
Mr. Winters said the best sign that there is adequate co-operation "is that the development of Canada's resources is going on apace-"
I was somewhat disappointed to read that statement in the press. First of all, I think the minister's "frequent co-operation between federal and provincial governments"

Conservation
should be "continuous co-operation". I do not think it is an argument in support of a satisfactory policy just to say that it is evidenced by the fact that development of our natural resources is going on apace. That is no assurance that the development of those natural resources is being carried out along sound lines and in accordance with strict conservation principles.
As opposed to the minister's opinion, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the opinion of an outstanding scientist who has given a lifetime of study to the problem of conservation of natural resources in Canada. I am going to quote from a book entitled "Conservation in Canada" by O. M. McConkey, at page 12. In that connection I want to say that Mr. McConkey is professor of field husbandry at the Ontario Agricultural College and he is recognized across Canada as a great authority on this subject. I might say in this connection in passing that O.A.C. is my old college, and without a doubt it has made a great contribution during the years to agriculture in Canada, and even throughout the world. Personally, I would recommend to anyone interested in this subject the purchase of this book which, I believe, was published first early last year, and to study what Professor McConkey has to say. In any event, as opposed to the minister's opinion in this respect, Professor McConkey has this to say:
When we consider that as Canadian citizens we are guardians of our heritage of natural resources for future generations, we should establish permanent departments of conservation at federal and provincial government levels to co-ordinate and execute long-term plans of conservation of the nation's natural resources now.
Canada has a great opportunity to carry out a national plan of conservation. Canada is a new country. We can take warning from the mistakes of old civilizations where the resources of soil, water and forests have been destroyed. We can heed the lessons to be learned from sound forest and soil management in those nations that have survived over the centuries. We have all the advantages of modern science and the known techniques of conservation. At present we are exploiting our forests, soils, minerals, and oil at an alarming rate. The speed of exploitation will increase with the modem world's insatiable demands for raw materials for industry and war.
Now, this is his concluding sentence in dealing with that subject:
Do not let us be deluded by temporary prosperity. We should establish a long-term rational plan of conservation and administration of the natural resources of Canada now, before it is too late. We must not fail.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to contrast the opinion of that outstanding scientist, who has written a remarkable book and who has spent years of his life in studying this question as it applies to the Canadian
'Mr. Herridge.]
situation, with the remarks of the minister when addressing the chamber of commerce in Sault Ste. Marie.
I should like to give a few indications, Mr. Speaker, of the growing demand for, and support for, a national policy of conservation in Canada. I am going to give a few illustrations from the press. The first one I want to give is a portion of an editorial written by the editor of the Country Guide in the November issue, 1952. The editor of this paper, Mr. Harold S. Fry, a very noted agriculturist in Canada with wide experience in agricultural matters, and with a wide knowledge of Canadian conditions as well as public opinion in the country in which this paper circulates, had this to say-the editorial is entitled "Sensible Conservation Policy":
There is evidence that the provinces, who control our natural resources, are beginning to recognize, at long last, the need for a national conservation policy. Under the circumstances, the role of the federal government must necessarily be that of a co-ordinating agency, able to supplement the efforts of the individual provinces, where necessary, from the national treasury. The relationship calls for sound planning, good will and tact. The overriding interests of the nation, and the immediate interests of the provinces, must be harmonized to the advantage of future generations of Canadians, if we are to use these resources wisely.
Since world war I we have heard a great deal about the conservation of natural resources. Special departments of government have been set up to guard and develop them. Indeed, more than 40 years ago, Canada established the commission on conservation, which, after 12 years of successful and lasting work, was dismembered to serve political purposes and its* pieces distributed among several government departments. During the last quarter century, nearly all progressive countries have become increasingly concerned about the rapid rate at which the growth of population and of industry tends to use up resources. The United States, which produces close to half of the world's industrial output, is seriously concerned already about the rapid disappearance of its vast heritage of coal, oil, soil and underground water. European nations have recognized for many years the folly of wasting the resources which nature has provided. Canada's undeveloped resources are perhaps greater than those of any other industrial nation, in proportion to our population, but we owe this fortunate circumstance more to our delayed development than to our foresight.
There is another powerful and influential voice, Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the need for a national conservation policy.
Now, that was an illustration from a paper circulated in the west. I want to read briefly from an editorial appearing in a paper circulated in Ontario. It is the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 21, 1952. This is what the editor has to say in an article on conservation entitled "We can control floods".
What this country needs is a national conservation board to organize and integrate the program made essential by floods, soil erosion, forest depletion and many other factors. Canada is the only

important nation in the civilized world with a government which gives no support to a sustained and general conservation program. It is spending a great deal on other things, which is money down the drain so far as permanent value is concerned. Those who are suffering from floods in western Canada have a substantial grievance against this government, which characteristically finds it convenient to do nothing about such matters until an election is about to take place. Floods do not await occasions.
There is another voice speaking in support of the necessity for a national policy of conservation.
Then, I wish to quote briefly from the Rural Co-operator of November 25, 1952. One paragraph in this editorial has this to say:
We must have a long-term conservation program and it must be introduced at once, before deterioration of our soils takes place. We would ask the provincial and federal governments to join in this program, a feature of which might be the establishment of numerous small dams on tributaries of our main watersheds and the development of farm ponds.
We believe the government of Ontario and our farm organizations must take action now to forestall a decline in the morale of our farm people and a repetition of the soil deteriorating practices of the thirties.
There is another voice, closely in touch with the farmers of Ontario, speaking in support of this policy.
I was interested, when reading the monthly letter of the Royal Bank of Canada of September, 1952, to read a most interesting article on the necessity for practising conservation in this country. I found it particularly well written, and written with a knowledge of the circumstances as they are today in this country. I want to quote one paragraph as evidence of support, and of the great awareness, of the need for this policy in Canada. It does not necessarily mean the spending of large sums of money by the federal government. It means effective leadership in order to coordinate the policies of the federal and provincial governments, and to create in the public mind a national conscience which will assure the preservation and conservation of our natural resources.
In this monthly letter I find this:
The activities of government at all levels should promote and assist the conservation practices which are to be undertaken by individuals, and government must accept the responsibility for necessary enterprises which are beyond the capacity of individuals. Government must, too, bring in regulatory measures, which are the rules of the game, just as necessary in conservation as they are in transportation, communication and other enterprises that affect the public welfare.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we in the C.C.F. heartily support this proposal, but strangely enough when the C.C.F. proposes planning or regulatory measures some people refer to them as dictator's proposals. I 68108-5S
Conservation
believe that all sensible and intelligent people realize today that, in our complex civilization and in this complex economic development, there is no question but that if we are going to progress there has to be increased planning by government and increased exercise of regulatory power in these matters.
Furthermore, we have one organization in Canada which has paid a great deal of attention to this subject. I refer to the Agricultural Institute of Canada. For some years it has had a committee studying this problem. That committee was composed of some of the outstanding men in Canada in connection with agriculture, water resources, forest resources and other matters concerning our natural resources. They have done the people of Canada and the governments of Canada a great service in devoting their time and attention so closely throughout the years to this very important question. I want to deal for a moment with a brief the organization has presented to the government in connection with this problem. I shall have more to say about that when the bill proposed by the minister concerning water resources comes before the house. I just want to quote two paragraphs of the resolution, and then briefly from the policy that the Agricultural Institute of Canada recommends:
Whereas the Agricultural Institute of Canada developed, in 1948, a national soil and water conservation policy with the full approval of its members in all nine provinces, and presented this policy to the federal and all provincial governments at that time,
And whereas that policy strongly urged that all federal and provincial soil and water conservation policies should give recognition to the importance of placing the administrative responsibility in departments of agriculture,
And whereas the experience of the past fifteen years has proved that soil and water conservation are interdependent,
And whereas in 1935 the federal government, facing the serious national problems of soil erosion by wind, and the necessity of the development of water resources to minimize the problems of drought, passed the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and later the Maritime Marshland Reclamation Act, resulting in incalculable benefits to the areas concerned; and decided that the administration of this conservation activity should be the responsibility of departments of agriculture,
Be it resolved that the Agricultural Institute of Canada commends the government for its intention to provide legislation to deal with the very important problem of the conservation of Canada's resources; that a strong brief on soil and water conservation be submitted to the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet.
And this brief was presented, Mr. Speaker. I am also pleased to see that there is one more step toward the development of a national policy on conservation in the legislation the government intends to bring before the house, but we in this group believe that this is too piecemeal an approach; that the

Conservation
conservation of all these natural resources should be co-ordinated and should be directed as the result of the development of a national policy by this government.
I want to deal briefly with the recommendations mentioned in this brief. The basic arguments of the submission made by the Agricultural Institute of Canada are these:
(1)	That efficient land use, which is dependent on soil and water conservation, is becoming of more urgent importance as the populations of Canada and of the world increase.
(2)	That there is need for a clearer and more comprehensive national policy of soil and water conservation than has been operated in Canada to date.
Naturally when you talk about a national policy on soil and water conservation you include forest conservation, because forest conservation is related to both. I continue with the recommendations:
(3)	That conservation and agriculture offers a highly complex problem, involving the services of trained personnel in many fields of agricultural art and science.
(4)	That for all existing, or potential, agricultural land, soil and water conservation are inseparable.
(5)	That the farmer must be considered the most important factor in the ultimate effectiveness of any soil and water conservation policy.
(6)	That the farmer can be helped most by those who know his problems the best.
(7)	That all experience shows the desirability of centring all administrative, planning and development responsibility in the field of soil and water conservation in departments of agriculture.
While dealing with this aspect of a national conservation policy, the brief deals particularly with soil and water conservation. I would like to deal briefly with the question of river bank erosion and river pollution. I did not have time to mention this at the last session, but I shall refer to it now because I think it is further evidence of the necessity for a national policy to cover all these fields. There is a great problem so far as river bank erosion is concerned in many places in Canada. It is a great problem on the Columbia river, which flows through the centre of my constituency. I understand that it is a great problem around lake Ontario and in other places in Ontario and other places. We have constant damage to river banks, in some instances to villages, towns and cities, and to valuable property, which goes on unceasingly but which fails to receive adequate attention. The menace, the threat, continues to be there because there is no national policy with respect to the problem of river bank erosion and also the pollution of rivers.
In my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, and in many parts of British Columbia, we had very heavy floods in 1948. The waters of the Columbia overflowed into the city of

Trail and caused thousands of dollars worth of damage; in fact the lower parts of the city could have been completely inundated had not the citizens of the district and the officials of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and all concerned worked very hard over a period of a week, using all the modern equipment that fortunately was available, to build a large dike to keep the river back. But the threat is still there. Any time the Columbia river rises above its banks there is a threat to the city of Trail, there is a threat to other communities along the Columbia river and a threat to farming land and so on. Nothing is done to remedy this because all governments continue to pass the buck, because we continue to operate under legislation that was drafted years ago, and because we fail to have a national policy so far as conservation is concerned.
I am told-I do not know whether I will get it quite correctly-that the constitutional position is something like this. I notice that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is listening. I went into this matter very carefully; in fact I read many letters that had been written about erosion on the Columbia river by the federal government or the provincial government or any organization or any individual since British Columbia entered confederation, and I can say that it has been a continuing threat and a continuing problem on the Columbia river and in the various communities since that time; and it continues to be a serious problem.
I understand that from the constitutional point of view navigable rivers are the property of the federal government. I see the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) shakes his head. If I am wrong in that respect I should like to be corrected.


An hon. Member:: Responsibility.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Responsibility of the federal government.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Responsible for navigation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: So far as the use of the river for power purposes is concerned, I understand that is the responsibility of the provincial government. I understand that it is the kinetic energy of falling water that produces the power. Therefore, if the banks of the Columbia river overflow and damage the property of the city of Trail, since the city of Trail is the creature of the provincial government, it is actually the property of the provincial government damaging the property of the provincial government, and therefore the federal government has no jurisdiction. I understand that it goes something like that.

I am not a lawyer, and I may have got the matter slightly out of focus, but I do say that, Mr. Speaker.
For instance, the municipality appealed to the minister for assistance in building a river wall. There had been a river wall built in previous days, and I found that was done under some act during the depression that was for the general advantage of Canada; and they wanted it extended. I think the minister quite correctly said that it was not the government's place to deal directly with the municipalities; that it would be up to the provincial government to make representations. Therefore the city of Trail made representation to the provincial government. I understand that so far the provincial government has not made any representations to the federal government.
The point I wish to make is this. In my own constituency here is a continuing threat, which is a problem, and which has existed since British Columbia entered confederation. Because of the constitutional position, and because of our lack of a national policy on soil, water and forest conservation, governments continue to pass the buck, property continues to be destroyed, and nothing permanent is done about it.
I do think that is one problem that the federal and provincial governments should handle. It has to be met. Whatever is done has to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. In my opinion we need a policy that would cover a situation of this kind, which exists in many places in Canada.
The same thing occurs with respect to the pollution of our navigable waters. There is no policy concerning the prevention of the pollution of those waters. Expansion of industry means increased pollution of many of our great rivers. This situation indicates the need for a national policy to protect our waters.
I shall not say more on that at this time, because I am sure there are other members in the house who will have something to say on the resolution. Before passing on, however, I must pay tribute to the Department of Agriculture for the good work that has been done by that department throughout the years under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. The only thing required to make that act fully effective is its extension to all provinces in Canada, so as to bring the administration of the act within the terms of a national policy.
What we require more than money at the present time is leadership and co-ordination which will bring about the building up of a
Conservation
national consciousness in support of that policy. I wish to pay tribute to the science service of the Department of Agriculture. This service undertakes investigations in respect of various pests, insects and forest diseases. I know that in my district the science service has conducted some very interesting and worth-while studies. The work they do for the forest industry of British Columbia is highly appreciated by that industry.
All I suggest in the resolution is that all these good works should be placed together in a national policy so as to co-ordinate the activities of all these people so they may work in one direction with one general purpose and objective.
In addition to the organizations, persons, editors and other organizations I have mentioned, I would point out that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports a national policy of conservation. The Canadian Congress of Labour on various occasions has expressed strong support of a conservation policy in this country. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Forestry Association, many other organizations and thousands of people who are interested in this subject are urging the government to establish a national conservation policy. I cannot take time to mention many individuals, but I do wish to refer to two or three. I would refer first to a gentleman in Montreal, Mr. J. L. Van Camp of the Canadian Forestry Association, who has done a great deal of excellent research work and writing in connection with the conservation of our forests and water resources. I would draw attention particularly to a pamphlet he put out recently under the heading "Water is a Forest Product". This is an excellent pamphlet, and I should like to see it distributed generally throughout the schools of this country. Men like Mr. Van Camp are working behind the scenes and making a study of the problem so as to provide information which would serve as a basis for the establishment of a national policy on conservation.
Then in this connection I would mention Mr. A. Koroleff, who has done much research work in connection with water and forest conservation. I would advise anyone interested in the forest industry to secure a copy of his book entitled "Stability as a Factor in Efficient Forestry Management", published by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada. It is one of the best books on the subject to be found in recent years anywhere on the North American continent.
Then again I must pay tribute to Professor McConkey of the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph for his book "Conservation in

Conservation
Canada". I would recommend it to all members on all sides of the house. It represents years of thought and investigation.
Before concluding I should like to quote once again from Professor McCohkey's book, where he says:
The Canadian people have been blessed with a great and beautiful country, fairly rich in natural resources. It is ours to use wisely, and to hand on to future generations without waste.
We need a change of mental attitude from the prevalent materialistic thought of getting rich quick through the exploitation of our natural resources to that of conserving and improving our resources- a love of our land. Learning about conservation is not enough. What is desired is the development of a conservation consciousness, which results in changed behaviour. The ideals, knowledge and skills of the school children of our country will have much to do with what happens to our land and its resources now and in the future. Conservation is a primary obligation of Canadian citizenship.
I should like to see the government give a lead in this direction. He continues:
Education in conservation is an urgent need of our Canadian people at all levels, through primary and secondary schools, colleges, universities and adult education.
What I am saying this afternoon represents the viewpoint of the C.C.F. It represents the viewpoint the C.C.F. has presented continuously throughout the years. In its program, in its literature, on the public platform and in the House of Commons the C.C.F. has proposed consistently that a partnership of federal and provincial governments should take over the development and conservation of our resources in the name of the people. Then profit would be no longer the main incentive; proper care and economic development could ensure a higher standard of life for the Canadian people in perpetuity.
As I have said, conservation is the practice of keeping the economic activities of the nation, the activities of man, in harmony with mother earth and with nature. There is one thought I wish to express before taking my seat, and that is that interest in the conservation of natural resources produces cultural and spiritual values; perhaps I should say intangible values. They are immeasurable, and cannot be counted. History proves that those who love the soil make good citizens. We do not find any amount of violent crime in the country, in the rural parts of Canada. We do not find much delinquency in the rural areas. Those conditions are found in much greater degree in our cities. So far as the record is concerned, we find that wherever people are interested in their natural resources, are interested in the soil and are interested in nature, they can be accepted as those who are responsible citizens and with the greatest degree of stability.
IMr. Herridge.l
For years the C.C.F. has preached the doctrine of the conservation of human and natural resources. Once again the soundness of our policy is being demonstrated by the increasing demand for the planned development of natural resources across Canada. There has been a wider and wider support of the ideas put forth and expressed throughout the years by members of this group.
Great progress in the conservation and planned development of natural resources has resulted from a national policy based upon the co-operation of federal and state governments in the United States. Prior to the development of a national policy in that country, little progress was made in that respect. I think a careful reading of the records of that country will indicate that its development has come about through the co-operation of federal and state governments, as well as that of organizations and individuals in that country. When that took place they began to make some real progress in preventing the further deterioration of their vast natural resources.
We in this group believe that Canada needs action now on this great question. That action can come only as the result of effective leadership by the federal government, based upon a national policy such as we suggest. More and more Canadians subscribe to the creed of a Nigerian chieftain who said:
I conceive that the land belongs to a vast family, of which many are dead, few are living, and countless numbers are still unborn.
We in this group urge the government to give the Canadian people an opportunity to practise this philosophy by means of a national policy on soil, forests and water conservation and land use for Canada.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Conservation
an ever-growing population with water is daily becoming more critical. The same thing can be said to a lesser degree of the two northern Pacific states. Even in British Columbia, where there is such abundant rainfall, the incidence of drought this year is a warning that we cannot let go unheeded.
Coming now to the part of the country where I live, the rural section of old Ontario, it has been estimated that in order to provide adequate forest cover for farm land at least 14 per cent of the land should be under such cover. In many counties and townships in old Ontario and old Quebec, that part of the two central provinces south of the clay belt, less than 5 per cent, in some cases only 3 per cent, of the land has adequate forest cover. In other words we have depleted our forest cover to one-third of that which is considered to be desirable for a balanced economy by forestry engineers and agronomists, I believe they are called, who understand the business of land use. There is a great temptation for more and more land to be put to the plow and cropped, particularly when prices are high and when specialty crops such as tobacco command extraordinarily good prices, and it is understandable that more and more land should have its forest cover removed.
| I want to make a suggestion to the government. I suggest that we have an optimum *of 14 per cent forest cover over our agricultural farm belt in southern Ontario; and that the federal government, through grants in aid to the province, should work out with the province, and the province in turn with the county and township governments, a method whereby the local governments could be recompensed for the taxes lost on land given over to increased forest cover. My suggestion is somewhat along this line. If a municipality had 5 per cent of its land under forest cover and it was desirable to increase it to three times that amount, and if the taking of an extra 10 per cent of the land out of agricultural use and putting it under trees would decrease the tax revenue of the municipality, the federal government together with the province should work out a method by which the municipality could be recompensed for the loss of revenue caused by increasing the forest cover.
I want now very briefly to mention the timber industry as such and not in connection with forest cover. I want to quote a report which appeared about a year and a half ago written by John D. Gilmour, B.Sc.A., who also has a B.Sc. in forestry. He is speaking

with regard to the use of our Canadian forests, and the title of the pamphlet is "Canadian Forest Policies are All Wrong". The first three paragraphs of his pamphlet are as follows:
Canadians should check up on the management of their forests. Appalling deterioration has taken place during the last 50 years-a very short time in the life of a nation-and unless forest policies are changed speedily this country faces Complete forest bankruptcy.
This appeared in the Canadian Banker, the periodical of the Canadian Bankers' Association; and he says:
It is well that bankers, who are most vitally interested in Canada's long-term future, should interest themselves in forest management. The forest industries constitute the largest industrial group in Canada, contributing enormously to our domestic economy as well as to the maintenance of foreign trade and the earning of U.S. dollars.
Although many among the best-informed Canadians despair of the forest future, because the problem is mainly a political one and wrong propaganda has for many years been at work upon the public, there is time yet to apply statesmanship and courage to find the right solution. Good examples are afforded by other countries.
I do not profess to know anything about the problems of forest management but I am quoting this article by an expert and I think he hits the nail on the head fairly well when he says the situation is political.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are we frightened of? What possible problem are we frightened of politically with regard to our forests? The major industry in Canada today is that of forest products; yet we have articles written
and published in the most conservative____with
a small "c"-periodicals such as the Canadian Banker saying that our whole forest industry faces bankruptcy. It is a problem which this house cannot fail to take most seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that one of the worst criticisms which could be levelled against parliament is that in all the years I have been a member, fourteen of them now, the committee on mines, forests and waters has never met. Would it not appear that here is a problem-a technical problem if you like, but a vital problem-affecting our whole economy, about which we have done nothing. There have been resolutions like that of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge); there have been private bills similar to the one I brought in some years ago with regard to pollution; but the committee has never met to discuss this very vital factor in the economy of our country, the soil and the forest cover.
You would think that this house was not interested. You would think that this was something of minor importance. The very feeding of the world and the economy of our

whole nation stems from the soil, and the forests stem from the soil. With the horrible examples of erosion, of flooding, of dust bowls, and the shocking example on this continent of the Pacific coast situation, as far as I know for nearly a quarter of a century we have never once thought it worth our while as members of this House of Commons to call that committee together and bring in experts to see if something could not be done.
These things are not likely to produce headlines. There is nothing startling in increasing forest cover, and erosion, except in times of great and sudden flooding, is a slow thing. It does not rage like a fire, though when the floods come their devastation is just as quick and just as complete. On this question of soil rests our security, our ability to build our population, our ability to do our duty as a world power, but we let it go. We let the soil become more friable, we let our forests burn, we let our rivers erode, we pollute our streams, and we destroy our wildlife. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why do we do these things? Why do we allow these things to happen? Why do we sit here and let our land be slowly consumed by this monster? I do not know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have too much.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Perhaps. My hon. friend says that we have too much, but I do not think we have too much, Mr. Speaker. I think we are late as it is in taking steps to put an end to this situation, and I earnestly request that the government set up this committee and let us get to the root of the whole problem of soil erosion, water tables and the very earth itself. There can be no possible question of politics in it; there can only be a question of survival.


Mr. G. M. Ferrie (Mackenzie):: I should like to say a few words on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is of special interest to my constituency. For some time I have tried my utmost to have action taken on the reclaiming of one million acres of land. Nearly two years ago the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) and I took up this matter. My reason for taking part in this debate is that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made the statement that soil conservation was C.C.F. policy. I beg to differ with him. It is certainly not C.C.F. policy in Saskatchewan.
For nearly two years I have tried to get the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan to co-operate with the P.F.R.A. in the draining of the area between the Saskatchewan river and the Carrot river. There is a delta
Conservation
there which extends from the Carrot river to The Pas. It is a wonderful piece of land which could be developed and put under cultivation. The work would cost too much for the province, but not in co-operation with the federal government. I have tried to persuade two ministers to co-operate with the federal Department of Agriculture to get this great scheme for the Carrot river delta started. The hon. member for Churchill commenced working on the scheme at the same time I did. He has reached the point where Manitoba is talking of an agreement to take care of the Manitoba side of the delta.
I believe it is quite unfair to state that the federal government is not taking care of our land in western Canada. The P.F.R.A. in connection with community pastures, and the removal from cultivation of the dried-out area which has been put back to grass, has proven to be an outstanding piece of legislation. There has been co-operation with the provinces, and it has proven a great thing for western Canada. We are urging that the
P.F.R.A. develop more land of this kind in the different parts of the three western provinces. It is good grazing land, but it is unsuitable for agriculture because it has periods of drought. We may go back a long way and say that it was a certain government's fault that this land was ever thrown open for homesteading. The land did provide a living for many people for a good long time. The P.F.R.A. has taken it over and is putting it back where it belongs, as grazing land.
The problem with regard to land and water conservation in the north is far different from the problem which we have here. As I have said, we have thousands of acres of small bush in my constituency. Since 1942 we have put about 50,000 acres of this bush land under cultivation, and it is now producing all kinds of grain. Some farmers are allowing their land to go back to pasture and some, on the advice of the P.F.R.A., are planting trees around their farms to make snow belts. There is no doubt that in time the northeast part of the province of Saskatchewan will do its share in providing food for the rest of the world.
Some years ago at one of the food conferences a member stated that there was not sufficient arable land in the world to give everyone in the world an American standard of living. I believe that is something we have to take into consideration. I believe one of the worst sights I have seen came to my attention in the province of Ontario. I am a great lover of the soil. I love to see the plow

Conservation
turn over the soil. I do not like to see a bulldozer removing good soil. Two or three years ago in the township of Etobicoke I saw bulldozers digging cellars in very good earth. If anything hurt, that did. I went up to the contractor and said, "Surely it is time we realized that there are thousands of acres upon which we can build houses without tearing up this good soil." He said, "This is going to be part of the city of Toronto." I believe it is time they got together and moved part of the city of Toronto up into northern Ontario, where it is possible to build houses without interfering with the food production of the country.
Some day we will realize that we have to take care of the good land the Lord has given us. I am sure that with good tillage, good care and good organization a great deal of land could be conserved. I am satisfied that we should co-operate with the provinces. In fact I would go this far, and say that in conserving land and water for the good of the people of Canada, we should not listen too much to the provinces. Our first duty to the people of this country is to provide food. It will not be long before the North American continent will need all the food it can grow. It will not be very long before there will be 185 to 200 million people in the United States, and it will not be long before there will be 20 or 30 million people in Canada. Then our wheat fields in western Canada, which are called the bread basket of the Anglo-Saxon people, will look pretty small to 200 or 300 million people. I am in favour of our joining together in Canada and co-operating to see that every bit of our land and every bit of our water are taken care of.
We need the South Saskatchewan dam; we need that lake of water across Saskatchewan. I am not going to go into that now; we can say more about it later on, but we need that. Five hundred thousand acres can be utilized on our western plains. That would feed a lot of people.
In closing I wish to say there is no reason why the Saskatchewan government cannot cooperate with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration and try to make that Carrot river delta as good a producing piece of land as the Portage plains.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I find there is much in what the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) has just said with which I can agree. The last two or three resolutions that have been produced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) have been supported by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson)

and the hon. member for Mackenzie. This indicates that it is a subject on which there is very little political difference. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) applauds. It may be that because of the Christmas spirit we are going to have a happy time for the remainder of the session. However, I am not so sure of that.
I am going to try not to repeat what has been covered in the speeches that have been delivered by the previous speakers, because I know we are all in unison, as the hon. member for Mackenzie has said, in our belief that people must be fed. We are conscious of the fact that the population of this world is increasing steadily and that millions of people are starving to death every year. We are also conscious of the fact that 60,000 more people are being born every day than are dying. We are also conscious of the fact that it has been estimated that the deserts of the world are increasing by 50,000 acres every day, and it is almost terrifying to try to comprehend just what it means.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has moved this resolution which involves conservation of soil, soil use, forest and water conservation. I am not critical of it. It is so important that we can all agree with it. In fact each feature of the resolution is so important that they all seem to be smothered by the tremendous consequences that are involved. Therefore I am not going to enlarge on what has been said in that regard, except to say that I am in full agreement with it. Judging by the attention that has been given to the matter by those who were in the house I know that we can all agree. It is not a case of party politics; it is not a case of criticizing this government particularly for not having done more than they have done in the last number of years, or of criticizing any particular province; because in fairness I know that the dominion government has its sphere of responsibility. As much as they may intrude on provincial rights, particularly by using their taxation powers occasionally, at least they do respect the old basic principle that the provinces are responsible for civil and property rights, and they do not like to intrude too far.
For many years, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have strongly supported our policies on agriculture. I have been keenly interested in agriculture, but I have been concerned to see so much money set aside for agriculture in this dominion. I am not critical of that. In fact I realize that there is no one in this house who has not at some time or other said that agriculture is the basic industry,

the backbone of Canada, and so forth. We all know it is important; but I feel that sometimes we overlook other more important industries. Therefore I am not going to deal with water conservation, land use or the soil itself, because we know that the greatest God-given heritages we have are the first six inches of soil and the forests. Forestry is important. For many years it has been more important in your province, Mr. Speaker, than agriculture. In fact I think it is more important yet in that rich province to the east. Almost every province in Canada is vitally concerned. Forestry and forest products generally, as the previous speakers have said, have been to some extent overlooked. There is no industry in this dominion, Mr. Speaker, that gives so much to the national revenue of this country and gets so little out of it. No industry in Canada pays as much in taxes into the national revenue as does the forest products industry of this dominion, and no industry of any importance gets so little from the dominion by way of assistance.
In agriculture we have the central experimental farm and other farms supported by the dominion government; we have agricultural services supported by the government; we have all sorts of assistance from the dominion government running into hundreds of millions of dollars over the years. Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not say this in a critical mood of the present government. It has been the way of governments in Canada down through the years. So far as that is concerned no party in this house, neither the party forming the present government nor those who sit in opposition representing Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has any monopoly on how little it has done for the forests of Canada.
As has been said by the hon. member for York West today, we have smugly gone along and taken it more or less for granted. We have had all sorts of parlour criticism about what has been happening to our forests. I am not going to speak on that, or of what reforestation and keeping the ground covered with forests means to water levels. Every hon. member knows that very well. He who runs may read.
Not so long ago I read an article which said it has been estimated that a thick reforestation of five acres will raise the water table from 3J to 4J feet on fifty acres of land. Therefore it has a great effect on our whole national life, on climate, streams and all the rest of it. We know how streams have dried up even in our time because of lack of forests; and I do wish to mention the importance of the forest products industry of this dominion.
Conservation
As I have said, it is Canada's leading industry. It pays more into the treasury of this dominion than any other industry. It is first in the amount of wages paid in Canada. It is first in the employment of our people. It is first in value of exports to the United States, and plays a leading part in our trade with that nation. It stands first in importance in world trade. Our tremendous forest resources are of vital concern to the Canadian economy. No similar number of people anywhere in the world have at their disposal the vast forest resources we have in Canada.
I am pleased to speak on this occasion.
I hope no one will suggest that I am speaking only because I am personally interested in this industry. It will be kept in mind that I am also interested in agriculture, and have been interested in it all the days of my life. Whether or not we get more votes on the hustings than do the government supporters who would look for the support of the farmers, we must not forget that the forest industries of Canada are vital to the economy of our nation. They were of great importance during the years of depression, and all down through the years have been of great value to this nation.
Despite high grain prices, I would remind the house that exports from the forest industries of Canada have for several years brought in more foreign dollars, chiefly United States dollars, than has agriculture. Perhaps there are only a few people who realize the truth of that statement. We have been in the habit of accepting agriculture as our chief industry, from the standpoint of the income it produces.
I know there will be those who will say that our forests are being depleted and ruined. There are policies of reforestation that are sound in principle and should be proceeded with. I give my support to this resolution because it brings a matter of great importance to the fore, to the attention of the house and the government, and gives the government an opportunity to sit in with the provinces. I am not critical of the fact that the present government has not gone all-out in a program of road-building, fire protection and protection against disease in our forests. That is not the function of the federal authority; rather it is that of the provinces.
However, it is a matter of vital national importance that, no matter what party may be in power, the forest industries should be given careful attention. When I refer to the forest industries I mean, of course, lumbering, logging and all those other occupations involved. All governments in Canada should consider the forest industry as of paramount

Conservation
importance, even surpassing agriculture. Thus far, this has not been done.
I have only a word to say about the utilization of forests. I know there are those who will say that the forest industries are depleting and ruining our forests. They will say that those who are interested in forestry are proceeding in a reckless and haphazard fashion. Well, that may be a popular, parlour criticism, but I suggest it is wrong. It is just as nonsensical as if I were to tell some of my friends from western Canada that they should not cut down a beautiful field of golden wheat because those of us from eastern Canada would like to look at it. It would be just as foolish for us to say that it would be a shame to cut down that wheat. The difference is that it takes 50 or 75 years to develop a crop in the forest, while in the wheat field it takes only a few months, perhaps six or eight. Sometimes it takes longer than others. In Ontario, where we grow fall wheat, we think it takes about a year to get a crop.


An hon. Member:: Sixty-five days in the west.


William Earl Rowe: And it takes about 65 years to develop a tree.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: They do not grow wheat in the west in 65 days, either.


William Earl Rowe: It may be that the hon. member who interrupted first comes from a pretty rich district.
I have made these observations in passing so that the matter may be placed before the house fairly. This is a subject familiar to many hon. members. Indeed I know the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) know about the great forest industry of their native province. But this industry is divided into different spheres.
I mention this feature in passing because, after all, trees are like people. They are born; they blossom; they come to full fruition. Then they begin to get a little gray on the top, the foliage becomes somewhat scarce. Eventually they begin to dry up, and finally they fall down and die, returning to the earth.


Mr. Hees:: A sad story.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, it is a sad story; and, young as you are, some day you will realize the truth of it. There are some people who believe that because we have a beautiful forest it should not be cut down. I would commit the same folly if I were to say that because I have a beautiful crop of wheat on
[Mr. Rowe.l
my farm it should not be cut. There is no harm done, if these crops are properly harvested.
How are our forests harvested? Twenty-five per cent of the forest products are used to produce logs and lumber, pit props, railway ties and the like. Then from 23 to 24 per cent is used for fuel, to keep our houses warm. About 22 per cent of the total forest depletion in Canada is used by the pulp and paper industry. It is interesting to point out that a greater proportion of our forests is lost through fires and insect pests than is used in the great sawlog and lumbering business or the great pulp and paper industry. Then more of our forests are lost from lightning and disease than the amount used to keep our houses warm.
We should keep these thoughts in mind when we consider what is happening in our forest industries. It is not my intention to speak at great length, but I do urge that the government give the matter consideration. True, this is a private member's resolution; but in the interests of soil conservation, water conservation, and everything involved in these great forest industries, I urge the government to give consideration at the earliest possible moment to the setting up of a dominion-provincial conference to study this problem.
Someone may ask what can be done. I know this government seems to be getting more modest every day. Perhaps it would hesitate to infringe upon civil and property rights in the provinces to any greater extent than it already has. I ask the government to approach this subject as one that is fundamental to our economy, one that is as important as agriculture. The whole standard of living of our people depends upon what is involved in this resolution. Soil utilization and water conservation, employment and wealth-all these things are involved.
I am not one who believes that the forests of Canada are going to be depleted; not at all. I have made personal observation of our forests being harvested over several years. In one area, within a period of 20 years, I have seen half a dozen trees growing for each tree cut down. We know that in Ontario one of the large pulp and paper mills is now going over the very same ground from which it harvested trees 50 years ago. The same is true of the province of Quebec, the province of British Columbia and other places. The forest wealth of this dominion is tremendous, but only about one-third or one-quarter is being utilized. The other two-thirds or three-quarters is growing up, falling down and dying as I have tried to describe.

I believe there is a great field for the closest possible co-operation between the provinces and the dominion, as previous speakers have urged this afternoon. I do not think it is a waste of trees, if they are properly harvested, to cut them in order to keep people warm. I do not think it is a waste of trees to cut them in order to provide permanent employment for thousands of people. More people are employed by the forest industries of this dominion than by any other industry. I know of several such places, but there is one with which I am familiar where the third generation is working in the same plant. If the trees are properly harvested, if there is proper management, if the proper interest is taken by the public and government to protect our forests, not so much from being improperly cut and harvested as from insects, disease and fire, then there will be perpetual production and perpetual employment.
About three or four years ago I had the opportunity of visiting a mill in Sweden. At the front of the mill was a stone on which it was indicated that it had been there for 600 years. I asked the manager what it meant, where the stone came from. He laughed and said, "The older it gets the more we think of it, because everybody asks about it. This was a saw mill 600 years ago." That company was cutting trees on the same area. That is why it is like agriculture, only it takes 65 years for the one crop to grow while it takes only 65 days for the other crop to mature.
In our provinces it has been left to the different companies to do their own roadbuilding. These companies have to build roads and clean streams in order to make them navigable and in shape to take out the lumber. Roads are necessary in order to get the men in and the lumber out. Quite often it will be found that there is a gap of 40 or 50 miles between the roads of one lumber company and those of another just over the horizon. When a fire starts and is discovered by the fire rangers in their towers it is quite often found that it is inaccessible by road. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent by the forest industries of this country in the building of roads. Some companies have two or three hundred miles of roads on their limits. These are necessary in the carrying out of their operations.
It is true that a great amount of our forest wealth is being used. Every day the sun rises one hundred acres of Canadian forests are used to print the New York Times. I am mentioning only one, but I could mention other newspapers in the United States which
Conservation
are using just as much of our newsprint. It is said that is ravaging our forests, but the fact is that this wood is being cropped and is providing a lot of employment. These operations can be perpetuated.
This matter transcends Canadian politics; it is something indigenous to Canadian national life and our standard of living. I urge the government to give some thought to this problem. Probably it cannot be done by means of this resolution because with all due respect to the hon. member who has introduced it-I thank him for bringing it up at this time-it is almost too comprehensive; it covers almost too much. Perhaps he might say that one issue is involved in the others but I urge that there should be the closest co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments.
I urge the government to consider giving grants in aid to the provinces. I know they do not like to give money to provinces to be spent by someone else, but perhaps there could be a commission or a joint management scheme arranged to handle this assistance for road-building. I urge the government to give consideration to evolving a plan by which our forest rangers and fire fighters will be able to get to any trouble that may develop.
We sometimes blame the government for not having enough forest rangers when we see a fire ravaging a whole mountainside, but it must be remembered that a great many fires are due to lightning. This happens in districts where the trees have been infested with worms or disease and are so brittle that they almost explode when struck with lightning. The men who fight these fires should be able to get to them.
A scheme of roads in the forest areas of the different provinces would be of great assistance, and I urge the government to give some thought to providing grants in aid to the provinces in order that assistance may be given to an industry which provides more revenue for the national treasury of this dominion than any other industry, yet is receiving less because of what might be termed constitutional responsibilities.
There should be a conference between the provinces and the dominion to clarify what might be termed constitutional technicalities. The provinces are directly responsible for civil and property rights, but this great forest wealth involves our soil, our water tables and our national economy. So much is involved in this issue that the dominion government owes it to the Canadian people to give greater consideration and more attention to our great forest industry.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Conservation


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to support my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). The resolution he has on the order paper is pretty broad, and one could wander very far afield. However, I am not going to do that this evening. I have two points I want to make that are germane to the resolution, and I am going to stick to those two points. They arise out of a memorandum I have in my hand from the Nova Scotia fanners' association.
During the recess, in fact on January 7, this association held a meeting in Halifax to which they invited all the Nova Scotia members of parliament for the purpose of putting before them certain matters that are bothering the Nova Scotia farmers' association. I was not able to attend their meeting because I was tied up with other matters, and told them so; but I received a copy of a memorandum from them which no doubt all other members from Nova Scotia received. In order to lay the premise for my few remarks I am going to quote a paragraph from the memorandum which is relevant to the resolution now before us. The memorandum deals with several other matters having to do with the problems of agriculture in that province, but they can be dealt with at a time when a subject is before the house to which they can be related. The paragraph I wish to read from their memorandum is as follows:
For a number of years our provincial and national organized farm groups have been concerned with instituting some type of conservation of our soil, water and forest resources. In a recent reference made through the speech from the throne, it was intimated that such a program would be developed and administered under the Department of Resources and Development. We feel that any program of conservation which will be dealt with through provincial and national channels, and will ultimately concern the farmers of this nation, must be under the jurisdiction of trained men in the profession of agriculture working in close cooperation with our farmers, and we urge that serious thought must be given to this before our federal legislation is proclaimed. Soil and water conservation are inseparable and the experience of other countries in endeavouring to administer similar legislation in departments other than agriculture has left much to be desired.
I am in agreement with that statement. The speech from the throne did indicate that conservation measures such as are mentioned in the memorandum were being considered and would be undertaken by the Department of Resources and Development. I agree with the statement in the memorandum because

I believe that particular function belongs to the Department of Agriculture. At the present time the Department of Resources and Development has at its head a very fine man who is highly qualified in his own profession, as an electrical engineer. By and large the technical personnel of that department have to do with construction, housing, the financing thereof and matters of that kind. I think it is a mistake to take a matter that definitely belongs in the Department of Agriculture and place it in the Department of Resources and Development, because I do not think we want to have the future of the agricultural industry of this country tied in with a lot of technicians who are already very much involved in problems they are finding it very difficult to solve.
On the other hand the minister at the head of the Department of Agriculture knows a great deal about agriculture and has for many years, both provincially and federally, administered legislation on the prairies and throughout the country that has had a specific relation to the subject matter of the resolution now before us. I think that is one point the government definitely should consider if they are going to embark upon a program of soil, land and water conservation as indicated in the speech from the throne. In my opinion the first thing they should determine is to place these measures under the jurisdiction of the department that is best able to deal with them, and I support the recommendation contained in the brief of the Nova Scotia farmers' association.
I do not want to go into detail, but over the years I have read quite a bit about the experience in the United States when they set up an organization apart from their department of agriculture and attempted to do the kind of job that it is suggested in the speech from the throne we are going to undertake to do apart from our Department of Agriculture. The government would be wise to read about the experience they had in the United States, because it left very much to be desired. I want to make that point, and I strongly urge the government to consider this matter and refer the whole problem to the Department of Agriculture.
Then I have a second recommendation to make to the government. For a great many years on the prairies we have had the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and there are many trained personnel who for a long time have been carrying on the type of work that is here visualized on a national scale. They have gained a great deal of experience. In order to obtain equality of development throughout the country, I believe that the government should consider at the earliest

possible date the possibility of extending the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to cover the whole country. I think in that act they have all of the powers necessary to go into a full scale program of conservation of water, land and forest, and of reclamation. 1 think that act covers the matter on a regional basis in a way that we desire for the whole of the country.
As is suggested in this resolution in my opinion there are only two things the government ought to consider. The first is keeping the problem in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, and the second is the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act across the country with the necessary personnel to administer it in the other provinces. If that is done I think a base will be laid for a good over-all national development that would cover all the points suggested by the resolution now before the house.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) on stirring up so much discussion about a subject in which I am sure everyone has an interest. In my opinion it is more than an academic interest; it is a matter of the greatest importance to all of the people of this country. As the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) has pointed out, it is of the greatest importance to people everywhere, and I do not think there can be any disagreement between members on either side of the house about the desirability of conservation or even of a national policy.
The hon. member who introduced the resolution complained that members of other parties criticized the C.C.F. because they go in for planning. As I listened to him I found it very hard to disagree with the way he put his statement; but we do disagree with the C.C.F. for wanting to plan everything for us. In the course of his remarks, and I believe I am interpreting him correctly, he advocated a policy of nationalization of the soil, the forests and the things that grow in the soil, and I cannot agree with that.
This country has been wonderfully blessed by divine Providence with tremendous natural resources of soil, of forests and of water power; yet in almost every province from the Atlantic to the Pacific you hear complaints of shortages of one or another of them. I was told only yesterday that in the city of St. John's they are short of water, and that it is dangerous to extend the city any farther without making provision for additional water, for which they will have to go many miles. The federal government has advised investors in the United States
Conservation
that waters of the Yukon river cannot be diverted to develop an aluminum plant in Alaska because of the probable needs for development of water power within Canadian territory.
We are always hearing of tremendous floods and the soil erosion that follows those floods.
I remember reading of a very distinguished Newfoundlander, Sir Edmund Gosse, who became librarian of the British museum, and who wrote that when his father first went to Newfoundland 150 years ago at the site of the town of Harbour Grace great forests of spruce and pine grew down to the seashore. Today all the territory is a barren, and the word "barren" in Newfoundland has tremendous significance. It means vast stretches of land on which only small shrubbery grows. The government is now making an attempt to get trees to grow in that area.
When you consider that when this country was discovered, and for centuries afterwards, these great forests stretched over much more territory than they do today, and that despoliation by man, by forest fires sometimes caused by man's carelessness, and by insects has destroyed so much of it that we are worried about the future, then I think this resolution is timely in drawing the attention of hon. members and of important sections of the country to this problem.
These various resources are all related. I suppose the soil is the principal resource because from the soil the forests grow and the forests protect the water supply; but they are all interrelated. I would put the forests first in the sense that by having good forestry and reforestation, and by protecting the forests, we protect the waters in the lands where the forests are and in that way we protect the soil to a certain extent. In Newfoundland we have suffered terribly through forest fires, many of them caused by the railways. The substitution of oil-burning engines for the ordinary coal engines on the railways has had the splendid result of decreasing forest fires. When you pass along the railway line in Newfoundland or in the maritime provinces and see vast stretches of formerly beautiful forest lands destroyed, with nothing left but those gaunt spectres that stand up and seem to be protests against the wrongful use of the land by man, then we see that the need for protection and conservation is great.
Many years ago there was a man in Nova Scotia named Frank D. J. Barnjum-I do not know whether anyone here remembers him-who for years sent out letters to legislators and others warning them that the future would be disastrous if we kept on

Conservation
with the policy of using the forest resources without reforestation. I am glad to say that in recent years more attention has been given to the protection of forest lands in Newfoundland than was the case formerly. Every year now we have a fire prevention week or a forest protection week when attention is drawn to the preservation of the forests which mean so much to the people there. The same thing applies in the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec. By lectures to students, by broadcast talks, by notices and through the press the public is advised of the importance of the forests and the forest products industry to the country. This afternoon the hon. member for DufTerin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) told us something that is a fact, that the newsprint industry today is the most important industry from a monetary standpoint. It exceeds in the value of its production the whole of the agricultural industry; and that is a tremendous statement for anyone to make.
In Newfoundland we use the forests to obtain building material, fencing material, firewood, pit props and also pulp and paper. I suppose in the other maritime provinces the forests are used for the same purposes.
The hon. member for Kootenay West seemed to advocate nationalization, a nationally directed policy, but when he was talking about the work that was being done in the United States, which he praised, he spoke of co-operation between the federal government and the governments of the various states. It seems to me that what is desirable in this country is co-operation. The speech from the throne, in referring to conservation of the water resources of the country, speaks of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. The measure, of which notice has been given by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), implies co-operation and not a policy directed by the federal government. I do not think it would be advisable to have a policy directed from Ottawa. I believe it should be a matter of agreement, and the representatives of the different provinces and the federal government should get together.


Clarence Gillis: That is what the resolution calls for.


William Joseph Browne: That is the interpretation I put upon it, but that is not the interpretation the hon. member who introduced it puts upon it.


Clarence Gillis: It speaks for itself.


William Joseph Browne: Let me say
what it means.


Clarence Gillis: Did you read the resolution?


William Joseph Browne: Yes, I read the resolution. I have the resolution here.


Clarence Gillis: Well, read it.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman spoke of nationalization. I suggest that when he talks of a national policy-


An hon. Member:: He has nationalization on the brain.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member who is interrupting me now must admit that the policy of his party is nationalization of everything.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


William Joseph Browne: Other members of the C.C.F. party are interrupting and saying it is nonsense that the C.C.F. advocates nationalization of everything. Next we shall find they will become Conservatives. It is natural for our party to want to see conservation of the soil, forest and water resources of Canada.
I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) asked what could be done if there were a federal-provincial conference. I was going on to say what I think should be done. The federal government, through its various ministers, such as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), who seems to be a suitable man for that work, could act as a liaison agency between the different provinces. The federal and provincial governments could pool their knowledge and experience. All of them have had different experiences with different resources.
In Newfoundland we are probably more concerned with water power and forest resources than are the prairie provinces. Naturally on the prairies they are more concerned with the conservation of the soil. In any case the federal government, through its ministers, could act in a liaison capacity to bring the representatives of the provinces together and pool their knowledge and experience, and in that way a policy could be worked out by agreement and not by direction.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I rise to support the resolution of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I feel that he has done the country a service by proposing the resolution now before us, which requests that steps be taken to provide a national policy of soil, forest and water conservation and land use in Canada.
This afternoon I noticed that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) seemed to think he was in the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan rather than in the House of Commons. He said something about a development program in the northeastern

part of Saskatchewan, and wished the Saskatchewan government would help develop that area in co-operation with the P.F.R.A. I am not well acquainted with the issues involved but so far as I know the Saskatchewan government has always been prepared to co-operate with the P.F.R.A. in every way possible. However, the government of Saskatchewan does not want to turn over that land to the sole administration of the P.F.R.A. So far as the Saskatchewan government is concerned, I feel it has taken an active and growing interest in conservation. This is borne out by the fact that the budget of the Saskatchewan department of agriculture has increased five times since 1943-44. In addition to that increase in the budget of the department of agriculture, $750,000 has been allocated to capital account, mainly for irrigation and drainage projects.
To me the matter of conservation is simply the matter of using the land and water resources in the best way possible. Any program of conservation for Canada is a program that will help all parts of this nation. In looking over the various reports that have been made by agricultural authorities, certainly the maritime provinces and Ontario stand to benefit a great deal from a conservation program. A committee of experts on land use, meeting in Guelph in 1942, reported that there were 8,000 square miles of abandoned farm land in the province of Ontario, and that at the then rate of rehabilitation it would take 800 years to bring that area back into crop production. I believe that Ontario, because of its high rainfall and its rolling topography, has probably suffered more from water erosion than any other part of Canada. For that reason Ontario has a stake in a national conservation program. I feel that a conservation program is something that will appeal to all Canadians in all parts of our country.
The best person to undertake the conservation of land is the farmer who is operating that land. It is unfair to expect the farmer unassisted to conserve for posterity his land resources when he must make a living from year to year. Perhaps because of heavy debt the farmer must work his land in such a way as to obtain the greatest possible annual income. From personal experience and observation I can say that the western Canadian farmer is not in a position to follow the best land use practices. Even though a given part of his farm, from the standpoint of conservation over a long period, might be better used in the production of grass, in most cases the farmer is unable to do that economically because he has a mortgage on his farm or has obtained some credit and his creditors are
Conservation
knocking at the door. They want cash every year, so he is forced to grow a cash crop. He is forced to raise grain year after year, even though he may know that such a practice is not the best long-term land use for his particular farm.
If the farmer is to conserve his land as he would like to do, and as he needs to in the national interest, then some assistance must be given that farmer. This principle has been amply demonstrated by the experience of the United States department of agriculture. In the United States a farmer is paid a specific sum for carrying out a specific conservation practice on his farm. If we want our farmers to engage in contour farming, in a proper system of crop rotation, then the farmers will need some financial assistance and leadership from the federal government.
The House of Commons does not have to take my word for that statement. I have before me the words of L. B. Thomson, director of the prairie farm rehabilitation organization. He makes the statement that if we are to get proper land use and proper conservation of our soil resources, then in addition to an educational program there must be some financial assistance provided to individual farmers to undertake necessary and specific conservation practices.
I feel that it is in the long-term interests of our nation to provide a conservation program for our soil resources, particularly when we are aware of the fact that from our land we obtain our greatest new wealth. Our soil produces new wealth annually to the amount of over $2 billion. From the standpoint of keeping our economy buoyant and maintaining prosperity in the nation we need to make sure that agricultural production is maintained, yes and even increased. If we fail as a nation to conserve our agricultural resources, in addition to the eroded lands of Ontario and the maritime provinces we may have a return to the dust bowl conditions that prevailed in the three prairie provinces in the 1930's, and when those conditions prevail over a long period of time they do permanent damage to the productivity of the soil.
One of the most powerful weapons for peace and democracy in the world today is food. It is difficult to see how we can promote democracy when we on the North American continent are worrying about burdensome agricultural surpluses and doing little about them, while at the same time most of the citizens of the world are hungry. I say that a program of proper conservation, a program of expansion of our food production, together with policies to make that production available to the hungry peoples of the

Conservation
world, would be our best and most effective contribution toward peace in the world.
I come from a province that has never had a surplus of water. Nevertheless we have one source of water that might be utilized more effectively in the future than it has been in the past. I refer to the Saskatchewan river, and specifically to the development of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. In moving this resolution the C.C.F. have not attempted to show that we are promoting conservation and others are not. The same is true in reference to the South Saskatchewan dam. If there is one person in Canada who has done perhaps more than anyone else to promote the idea of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project and the benefits that would flow therefrom to all the people of Saskatchewan it is our own federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Ever since 1935 he has toured that province year in and year out, election after election, explaining to the people of Saskatchewan the great benefits that would flow from the development of the South Saskatchewan dam, and we agreed with him all the time. As the elections were held the Minister of Agriculture became more specific.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: No, you did not do anything of the kind.


Hazen Robert Argue: Speaking at a meeting at Lemberg on June 23 in the 1949 election campaign, the Minister of Agriculture asked the people of his audience to send the Liberals back to Ottawa to complete the job. At that time he was referring to the completion of the South Saskatchewan river project. All the reports we are receiving now, including the answers given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), indicate that the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project is going to be adverse. When the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed to the statement in Time magazine that the report would be adverse, the Prime Minister said: "Of course there are some leaks on some reports from time to time." I myself am not mainly interested in whether or not that royal commission recommends the development of the South Saskatchewan river project, because as far as I am concerned the main thing is not whether the royal commission recommends the completion of the project; the main thing is whether or not the government will proceed with the project.
Over the years, and indeed for a number of years, the P.F.R.A. engineers have recommended this project. They have given their

estimates of costs from time to time; and even though, according to the reports, the commission, after a quick look, obtained an estimate that the cost would be $250 million, this does not prove at all to me that it is in any way correct when the best P.F.R.A. engineers have said that the cost will be less than half that figure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be better to postpone discussion on that project until the report has been tabled. The matter has been referred to a royal commission, and the commission has not yet reported.


William Gilbert Weir: Has it not? How do we know all these things about it, then?


Hazen Robert Argue: Apparently the report of the royal commission has not yet been made available to hon. members.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Did you not get a copy?


Hazen Robert Argue: As I understand it the sittings of that commission have been concluded, and it is a matter of printing or something else; then hon. members will be given the report. However, I would point out that the resolution we are discussing refers to conservation and the use of water resources. Because that is contained in the resolution I was attempting to point out that the South Saskatchewan river project is important to western Canada and particularly to Saskatchewan, and we feel that the best use should be made of the water resources in that province. I believe it is well known to hon. members, because it has been mentioned here many, many times, that the development of such a project would irrigate 500,000 acres of land. The development of the project would provide over 400 million kilowatt hours of electricity.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member again, but I think he will agree with me that the discussion of that problem might better be left until the royal commission has reported.


Hazen Robert Argue: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to postpone discussion of the report until it has been made public, although I want to say that my whole purpose in discussing it at this time is not to comment on its contents, but merely to point out that the people of Saskatchewan are demanding and will continue to demand the completion of the South Saskatchewan irrigation and development project.
The resolution of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) refers to the development of water, land and forest resources. If we are to conserve adequately our forests, our lands and our water resources there must be legislation to make this possible.

I should like to point out, however, that we shall oppose any move to take land conservation and use out of the Department of Agriculture and hand it over to the Department of Resources and Development, or any other department. Surely no group is better qualified to deal with the conservation of land resources than the persons who have specialized in the subject, and who have obtained university and technical knowledge in the field of land use and conservation.
I see on the order paper a resolution which forecasts legislation to provide for the conservation of water resources, for which the federal government will pay 37 J per cent in respect of any project. Let me say to the government that this measure should not mean that the present program under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, controlled by the Department of Agriculture, is curtailed in any way. I hope it does not mean that there will be either a quick or even a gradual shift to the Department of Resources and Development any part of the land conservation program now under the Department of Agriculture. We in this group do not always agree with the Minister of Agriculture and the officials in his department; but I think it is agreed by all that the prairie farm rehabilitation program has been good, that at least at the top it is staffed by most competent persons, that nothing should be done to curtail the program, but that rather everything should be done to expand it. If we use the present facilities it offers and, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, make it applicable to all parts of Canada, and use the personnel we now have in the Department of Agriculture, we shall have taken a long step forward in conserving our land and water resources.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I have found this debate particularly interesting, and for that reason I feel grateful to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and to other hon. members who have taken part in it. Because, as has been said, it is not a party matter; rather it is a matter in which we have common interest. My own excuse for taking part in the debate is some of the observations that have been made during the course of the debate.
I was, in the first place, surprised and perhaps the least bit shocked, by what was said by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), that the standing committee of the house set up for the purpose of dealing with these matters has not been called together for a good many years. I have asked myself why that was so; and the answer I have given myself is that perhaps it has not seemed very urgent, that other things have
Conservation
seemed more urgent, and that this has been allowed more or less to remain in the background.
I should like to make one or two suggestions. First of all, this is an urgent matter. These are increasing evils. There is increasing deterioration going on at the present time which, if not stopped, will become extremely serious. In that connection I should like to refer to a report made some years ago under the auspices of the dominion and Ontario governments, I believe, with regard to a small area in Ontario which was intensively investigated.
Having regard to erosion and other matters which have been referred to here tonight, it seems to me if we look back to that time we see that during the war-and the report I mention was made at that time-there was every intention of dealing quite seriously with this problem when the war should end. It was felt that this and other forms of activity would be necessary to provide employment.
I think if we look back we can see clearly that what has happened in the last several years is that we have been so busy exploiting new resources, notably mineral resources which, after all, do not re-create themselves -"one toot and yer oot!"-that these resources have been neglected. These resources which, as has been pointed out today, are perennial, provided we do not destroy them, have tended to receive far less attention than they otherwise would.
This leads me to ask whether the situation is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I was a good deal reassured by one thing said this afternoon by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) because, like the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), I remember the letters which used to be sent out 25 years ago by Mr. Barnjum. He, as I recall it, predicted disaster unless we very quickly pulled ourselves together in the matter of forest conservation. As I say, I was a good deal reassured this afternoon by what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said, though at the same time he stressed in the strongest possible manner the need still for a proper kind of conservation.
Leaving the forests for the moment and speaking about agriculture, we are all only too familiar as we go through the country, whatever part we are from, with the spectacle of abandoned farms, particularly due to erosion. I suppose that would have been dealt with much more effectively than it has been if it were not that, in spite of all our failings and in spite of all our neglect, we have had so much virgin land and so many

Conservation
new resources. In connection with agriculture we have produced plenty for our own needs, and sometimes almost more than we felt we could find places in which to sell it. That seems to have been the reason for our neglect.
As to the extent of the neglect, I should like to read a sentence or two from a report I hold in my hand which was made about the Ganaraska watershed. The Ganaraska is a little river emptying into lake Ontario at Port Hope. Anyone who has passed through that farming country would be delighted with its appearance and surprised to learn that it was suffering from severe deterioration.
I should like to read briefly from the introduction to the report, which is signed by Dr. R. C. Wallace, one time principal of Queen's university and before that, as hon. members will recall, an Albertan, and before that a Manitoban. Certainly few people have greater knowledge of Canada than has Dr. Wallace. The introduction to the report is dated December 21, 1943, and in it Dr. Wallace says, in part:
Deterioration of soil, due in large measure to the removal of forest cover, has given rise to serious problems in many parts of Canada. The soundest and most economical methods must be found by which such land may be brought back into productive use. It is now well recognized that conservation projects should be included among the major enterprises, both for providing employment in the immediate post-war period and over the longer term, to help to stabilize the economy as a whole.
And later:
On any basis, conservation is a pressing need. It is far from sufficiently realized how urgent the task of soil conservation is. If southern Ontario, in which the Ganaraska region lies, be taken as one of the older areas of Canadian settlement, it was estimated twenty years ago that 8,500 square miles of land was marginal or submarginal for agriculture. Recent observations show that in spite of the expanded conservation programs of the government in recent years, the submarginal areas are growing larger.
And finally he says:
At the present rate at which remedial measures are being applied, it is estimated that it would take several hundred years to deal with the problem.
In other words the soil could be so robbed in a very few years that conservation would then entail a task lasting several hundred years. The problem is there, but of course nothing will be done about it unless we have a certain sense of urgency. Perhaps it will be said, "How are you going to have a sense of urgency about the growing of wheat when we have a so-called surplus of wheat?"
It seems to me that we have moved into an international situation where we have to have a sense of responsibility as well as a sense
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
of marketing. As a boy I can remember feeling that it was rather surprising and rather fortunate that we on this continent were so well off, that we were so much better off than the people in other crowded parts of the world such as Asia, about which we read. But I accepted that as being a fortunate chance that I had been born in Canada and that we Canadians had these advantages. I probably felt that all we had to do was to be thankful for them.
But I think we all feel that we have moved into a different stage of history with the shrinkage of the world, as someone said, to the size of a baseball. I think everyone will agree that we have moved into a situation where we cannot afford to be irresponsible in the use of the land that we have. I was talking recently to a man who had just come back from India, and he spoke of what a distressing experience he had had in seeing crowded populations who hardly knew what it was to have a square meal.
I am not forgetting the humanitarian point of view because I know we all have that, but I think we have moved into a situation where it will be not only our duty but our interest to see that our lands and resources are conserved, that we grow the greatest possible amount of food. I am not overlooking what may be the immediate problem of finding out how we can fit this into world trading relationships, what techniques we can adopt and what relationships can be brought about so that what is grown here can be made available.
I just wanted to place these few remarks on the record. I am not purporting to say what exact steps should be taken. I have no quarrel with the wording of the resolution, as I feel that in spite of whatever other preoccupations we have we should not allow this matter of conservation to escape our attention. If we do so, one of these days we may wake up and find that the other resources which now are doing so much to assist our economy may not be needed as much as they are at the moment, and that all these particular workings which we now have will one day have disappeared. But as was pointed out earlier this day in this house, through the providence of God the resources we are now talking about are without end if we as the human agents do our part to maintain them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I tried on one or two occasions before this to rise but it was not possible for me to get into the debate. I do not propose

to take up much time in repeating the arguments that have been used by speakers who have preceded me in an effort to convince the house that this resolution should pass. I shall try to limit myself to dealing with a few things which perhaps have not been stressed to any great extent.
In the first place, I want to let it be known that those for whom I speak favour very much the tenor of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). We think it is timely. We think one of the most important results accruing from the discussion of a resolution of this kind is to focus the attention of the people throughout the country on the absolute need for all kinds of conservation activity, whether it be in the field of conservation of the fertility of the soil, the prevention of erosion, the conservation of water resources, the conservation of our forest growth or whatever else it may be. We do feel that influencing public opinion is one of the few remaining areas of effective action that are open to us.
We believe in a private enterprise system; we fight to uphold it and to continue it, but I must point out that one of the weaknesses of the private enterprise system, at least in so far as conservation is concerned, is that when you once have alienated resources from the control of the crown you have parted with any effective action that a government can take to conserve what is there, at least without interfering unduly with what we consider to be the rights of private enterprise.
This is particularly true in the field of soil conservation because in this country we follow the practice of selling the land to private holders. Once a sale has been consummated it is practically impossible for a government to take any effective action to see that fertility is conserved. But we can focus the attention of the people upon the necessity of carrying out all kinds of conservation methods, and publicity to be obtained through a debate of this kind is one effective way of doing that job. There will have to be a great deal of educational effort. Perhaps it is in the field of education where the results of a resolution of this kind will be most felt. I am glad at this time to be able to add my voice to the voices of those who have already spoken in support of this resolution.
I should like to see action taken to initiate some form of dominion-provincial activity. Whether a conference is all that is needed is something I have not decided at the moment. I lean to the view that after a conference such as is envisioned in the resolution is called, after it has considered the whole field of conservation and has perhaps suggested
Conservation
some type of policy, if the work is going to be really effective there will have to be a continuing dominion-provincial commission of some sort to follow up the work. Such a commission could continue investigations and make reports to parliament on its activities every year to keep us informed and help us in turn to educate the people back home about the essential nature of the conservation work that has to be undertaken. Therefore I would suggest to the house that a joint dominion-provincial conservation commission be considered along with the conference that has been suggested in the resolution. Already there have been quite a number of demonstrations of dominion-provincial action, and effective action at that, in the conservation field. I recall being quite closely associated with one or more of them, and I should like to say a word or two in connection with the two or three that I have in mind.
In the early days of this century it came to the attention of farsighted men in western Canada that something would have to be done to preserve the watersheds on the east slope of the Rocky mountains in the province of Alberta if we were ever to conserve and control the water flow and prevent the denuding of the forests, which of course would result in the drying up of the wellsprings of the great streams that flow across the western prairies. As a consequence of the farsighted recommendations of these men about 1910 or 1911, if I remember correctly, action was taken to set up what came to be known as the Rocky mountain forest reserve. That occupied an area of somewhere between 15,000 and 17,000 square miles. The area started at the northern boundary of Waterton lakes park and extended northward along the foothills of the Rockies to the northern boundary of about the 60th township. The area is all forest.
After the setting up of the reserve in 1911, efforts were then made to prevent forest fires ravaging the timber, and to try to conserve the growth as much as possible so the watersheds would be preserved. When the resources were handed over to the province of Alberta in 1931 an effort was made to interest the federal government in some dominion-provincial arrangement for protecting the watersheds. Not much was accomplished, however, until about 1938 or 1939, when I recall having made several trips to Ottawa from Edmonton, along with certain other ministers, to talk to the federal officials. At that time we took the position that the only effective way to conserve and preserve the watersheds of the eastern slope of the Rockies was to arrange some form of joint dominion-provincial activity and agreement.

Conservation
We tried our best to interest the people in the western provinces as well as those in the east in our problem, but it was not until about 1947 that other farsighted men began to see the importance of entering into a form of agreement with the province.
In 1947 the dominion government and the provincial government of Alberta set up what came to be known as the eastern Rockies forest conservation board which was given authority to administer the whole area of the east slope of the Rockies and take whatever action might be necessary to preserve watersheds, build roads, provide fire protection, provide for the cutting of the timber where it became too thick, in fact in practice all branches of conservation and preservation. The work that has been done by the joint commission has been most commendable and effective. We feel that it offers an excellent demonstration of what can be accomplished by dominion-provincial co-operation, and we are certain that the continued flow of the rivers, particularly the North Saskatchewan and the South Saskatchewan and their tributaries, depends upon the successful conservation of the eastern slope of the Rockies.
No one knows how much that sort of cooperation has meant to the western provinces, even beyond the boundaries of the province of Alberta where the conservation project lies. We feel that, by preserving the watersheds through joint action of the dominion and the province, all the western provinces are going to benefit, and I am satisfied that in due course the waters now needed so badly in the dry lands of southern Saskatchewan will be made available as a consequence of that conservation. There is one example. It seems to me that what was accomplished in that instance can be extended into other fields.
There is another example I should like to mention. Several speakers have already referred to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and what it has done. That act of course is the sole responsibility of the federal government. There is a considerable amount of co-operation with the provinces in certain phases of administration; but what we should like to see, in addition to the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to cover all Canada, is a little more inclination to take the provinces into the confidence of the federal government and let them help to make policy; because anything that touches so vital a spot in the provinces as does rehabilitation and conservation ought to be of concern to the provinces, and they should have some say in the formation of policy. They could have such a say under the proposed joint commission on conservation that I

have already suggested, and I believe the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act could be made much more workable and effective if it were considered in the light of close cooperation between the two governments.
In the field of irrigation there has been a great deal of close co-operation between the province in which I live and the dominion government. Irrrigation projects and their development in southern Alberta have meant so much to our province and its economy, in fact so much to the whole economy of Canada, that a person could talk about them for a long time. Some of these irrigation schemes have been built as joint dominion-provincial projects, the two governments sharing the costs and the province taking the full responsibility for the colonization and management of the projects after they have been built. These projects have been very successful. Irrigation, in addition to making it possible to produce things on land that otherwise would not produce very much under dry conditions, does go further and succeeds to a very great measure in conserving the fertility of the soil. In any successful irrigation district in southern Alberta you will find that the fertility of the soil is being maintained and that erosion has been cut down to a minimum. Certainly wind erosion is very small compared with what it used to be. Not only that, but the farmers are practising the most intensive forms of conservation of the fertility of the soil. I imagine that with the present form of management of those irrigated lands we can expect them to continue producing in abundance for a great many years to come.
When I was in Germany in 1948 I went down into an area near Helmstedt on the autobahn, where the autobahn crosses the border into the east zone, and I visited some farms in that area. There was one especially where I had a chance to talk to the owner of the farm, and he said that the land he was farming had been in the possession of his family for nearly 400 years. The family had quite a history, and he said the very land that he was cropping sugar beets on then had been raising sugar beets successfully since the time of Napoleon. It is still producing 15 tons to the acre per year. That seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, to be an excellent example of real conservation of the fertility of the soil. It has only been accomplished because the people who were operating the land and who owned it valued it highly enough so they have been prepared to take whatever action was possible to see that erosion did not take place, to see that the fertility was not mined out of it, and that sort of thing.

There is this to be said about the land in Germany. The government did take a real interest in it and in every way possible did impress on the people of the country the necessity of using the most up-to-date methods, machinery, fertilizer, crop rotation and other conservation aids. As my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) says, the production of sugar beets, certainly in that instance, has been one of the best methods of conserving the fertility of the soil in that country. The same thing can be said of those areas in southern Alberta which have been producing sugar beets for as long as I can remember, and my memory goes back almost to the turn of the century. They have been raising sugar beets in southern Alberta that long, and some of those lands are still producing excellent crops of sugar beets and other things which the farmers use in their rotation program.
I merely wanted to mention that, Mr. Speaker, for the reason that wherever people can be made to see how important it is to preserve the fertility of the soil, and wherever they are given the information on which to build their programs; and at the same time wherever they are given an opportunity to produce those things which are best suited to the soil, then conservation results as a natural consequence of care in handling.
But it seems to me we are becoming pretty careless. As I understand from the debates that have been going on here since the session opened, we are letting the beet sugar industry languish. We are not doing what we should do to protect it. We are not doing what we can to see that a market with lucrative prices is there for the producers of sugar. If we allow that industry to go by default and be destroyed then, Mr. Speaker, we are deliberately taking steps to destroy the fertility of our soil; and all the conservation methods in the world which we might use would not restore it or bring it back.
Therefore I appeal to all concerned to weigh these things very, very carefully and see to it that whatever action we take as a federal government does not destroy the incentive to use care to preserve the resources with which God has blessed this great country. I would suggest by every means possible that the provincial and federal governments come to some agreement with respect to a national conservation policy in all these fields. Following the drafting of such a policy a joint dominion-provincial commission on conservation should be set up to report to this house regularly, and to make proposals for legislation that might be made effective by dominion-provincial action.
Conservation


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to have been fortunate enough to catch your eye on a matter of such general interest and importance. I am sure most of the members of this house would like to have an opportunity of saying a word, and I assure you that I will not speak long enough to prevent any other member from joining in the debate. However, I do want to deal with one or two points arising out of this particular resolution.
I have not had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of hearing all of the interesting contributions that have been made to this debate, but I have listened with a great deal of interest to those which have been made while I have been able to be in the house this afternoon and this evening. It is quite obvious that there is unanimous agreement in this house on both the importance and the necessity of as broad a conservation program as is possible in this country.
When one looks at the variety and wealth of our natural resources, Mr. Speaker, one might think that we in Canada would be justified in having a tendency to be a little bit prodigal in our use of those resources. I am sure all will agree with me that in the past we have not been free from some grounds for complaint about the way our resources have been employed, and in some instances about a lack of thought for the future and lack of arrangements for conservation. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that besides doing a very creditable job in the manner in which we have developed and used our natural resources, in this country we have done a very creditable job in a number of directions in the field of conservation.
It has struck me during this debate that almost every member who has spoken has referred to one or more instances of important programs of conservation which are going on in his own area or of which he has personal knowledge. The western members have spoken of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the work that is being done under that legislation. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) who has just taken his seat has spoken of several other important matters of which he has personal knowledge. In the maritime provinces, for instance, we know of the excellent work that is being done under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, a program which is bringing back into productive use much valuable land in the maritime provinces which had been won from the sea generations ago by the early settlers and which to a large extent had through neglect gone back to the sea. A great deal of the damage which had been done has been

Conservation
repaired and those lands are going to be a source of wealth and a resource for future generations.
In saying that much has been done one should not suggest that anything more than a very good start has been made in this country in the field of conservation of all our resources, forests, soil and water. My only complaint with the wording of the resolution which is before the house is that it calls for a dominion-provincial conference on conservation. It seems to me that at this stage the responsibility of this house, and of the government, is to make sure that we have a sound and effective program of conservation in all the fields which lie in the authority and responsibility of this federal government. We should bring into effect, so far as is reasonably possible, the kind of long-term programs which we believe will carry out our responsibilities in the fields in which we are obviously responsible.
I believe the announcement in the speech from the throne at the opening of this session of the government's plans for bringing forward conservation measures indicates that this government is acting in the manner in which I think it should act. It seems to me that a resolution of this house which would indicate to the nation that an immediate dominion-provincial conference on conservation should be called is premature, and would not contribute materially to the objectives which we all have in view.
I believe one proof of the point I am making is that a good many of the members who have taken part in this debate have, as I mentioned earlier, referred to the various fields of conservation of which they have knowledge, and have indicated that in those programs there is an effective and satisfactory element of co-operation between the federal authority and the provincial authorities involved. Certainly that is true of the particular program with which I am most familiar, the maritime marshland rehabilitation program. This is a joint program between the federal authority and the provinces. The federal government has taken the initiative and has supplied the greatest part of the money, equipment and technical personnel to do this work, but it has been a fine effort of co-operation.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the existence of that co-operation at the present time indicates that what is needed at the moment is not the calling of a conference, but steady progress along the lines on which we are already embarked. I should think that in the years to come, when further progress has been made, it may then be advisable to consider the calling of some sort of dominion-provincial conference. But so long as there

are important fields of endeavour in which we could make substantial progress, and in which we are receiving, and can be confident of continuing to receive the amount of useful co-operation that is required, I believe that it would not be necessary for this house to pass a resolution demanding the calling of a dominion-provincial conference.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I indicate my wholehearted support of the principle of conservation, and my belief that these objectives will be fulfilled, but indicate at the same time my criticism of this resolution in its demand for that particular type of conference at this time.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that together with several other members of this house I had the opportunity last week of having a conference with the members of the executive of the Nova Scotia association of agriculture. This is a very active body representing the farmers of Nova Scotia, who invited the members of this house from that province to meet with them. I was one of those fortunate enough to be able to attend. At that time they presented to us a brief, to which reference was made earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). One of the important recommendations in that brief dealt with this matter of conservation. It is a matter in which they are vitally concerned, and upon which they have had a great deal of discussion. They are anxious for progress to be made in the field of conservation, and the burden of their recommendation was that their studies indicated that in other countries where conservation programs were satisfactory, so far as soil conservation was concerned, they were carried out by the Department of Agriculture.
My views are that the problems of conservation are matters with which we must cope, and the only kind of action any sensible person can wish to have is effective action. I am sure this government will study the problems of bringing effective action to bear on the matter of soil conservation, the conservation of water and forest resources, and if it is found that the only effective and sensible way in which this matter can be dealt with is under the Department of Agriculture, then it will be done in that way. My study of the problem has not been sufficient to convince me just what the proper answer is, but I can assure all those in my province who are interested in the matter that it will receive the most careful attention, and that any proposals that are put forward will be formulated on the basis of a sincere and carefully thought out policy intended to achieve the objectives which we all have in

view with the greatest possible speed, and with due regard to efficiency and economy.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I believe it is safe to say that all members of this house have welcomed this debate. From time to time it is refreshing to get away from the problems of the troubled world to give some attention to the position of our people at home, and to the future of this country. I think we are all optimistic about that. We know that we have a very large country. We know that it is a country that has been very bountifully endowed with natural resources, and we know that we have a position that is being recognized in the world today although there are only 14 million of us here at the moment. But that does not mean that this nation is going to remain a nation of 14 million people. In 1901 we had a population of 5J million. I will not be here to register my surprise, but I would venture the prediction that those who know what is going on in Canada at the present time will be disappointed if by the census of 2001 there are' not 35 or 40 million people in this country. There is room for them and for a lot more. There is wealth for them and for a lot more, still undeveloped. But we must be careful and see that it is properly conserved, so that when our grandchildren, our great grandchildren and their grandchildren are members of a nation of many more millions than there are in this country at the present time there will still be enough of these natural resources to enable them to enjoy the kind of life we in this country can enjoy when the world is at peace.
I have been concerned with some of the publications that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to and of which I took note. There is one more that I would call to his attention, a very interesting book published in the course of last summer by a forestry engineer of Quebec, Mr. Thomas Maher, entitled "Land of Milk and Honey or Wilderness of Cain". There are some parts of it with which I do not agree, but there are useful lessons one can learn from perusing it attentively.
We have made some mistakes; we have some abandoned farms; we have some places that might be in a different condition if other or somewhat different methods had been adopted in respect of them, but these are rather local problems. On the over-all picture we are not doing too badly. Last August I went up to lake St. John in the province of Quebec. There is a company up there marketing aluminum metal at the rate of $150 million worth a year, and all of our natural resources that are going into it
Conservation
are Canadian labour and electricity produced by the running water of our Canadian streams.
Then I went out to the west coast and stopped off at Trail. It will be recalled that 25 years ago there was an international dispute over the damage which farmers of the adjoining state of Washington, I think it is, claimed was caused to the vegetation in their state by the obnoxious fumes from the chimneys of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. There are no scars to show damage to any vegetation at the present time. Things grow out there, and they grow fast, and all traces of damage caused in that period have now disappeared. Since then those fumes have been applied to phosphate rock brought in from Montana, and the combination of the obnoxious fumes and the phosphate rock is $25 million worth of fertilizer a year; and every ton of that fertilizer, under normal growing conditions, means twelve additional tons of cereal crops.
Then I had the privilege of spending several hours each day for five days in the air over the mainland and over the island of Vancouver. I was tremendously impressed by the density and extent of the forest wealth of that Pacific coast, and rather felt that in spite of the large lumbering operations that have been carried on out there for so many years, and are still being carried on, we are not making any very great inroads into the forest wealth of that west coast. Perhaps my impression was somewhat strengthened by the fact that they were just about to open a $40 million pulp and paper plant at Campbell River where they are going to use nothing but refuse, sawdust, edgings, things that before were thrown away. That is an example of an improvement in our methods. We were wasteful, I think, in not making use of these things before, but we are getting over that.
Then I flew over to Edmonton and saw the tremendous progress that is being made on the petro-chemical plant. They are going to use waste there, too. I understand that before crude oil is used it has to go through refineries, and in the refining process there are some elements that do not go into the oil that is marketable. I had seen that in Sarnia, where there is a refinery where the waste goes from the oil refinery to the Polymer Corporation to make rubber, and that portion of the elements of that waste that is not taken to make the rubber goes over to the Dow Chemical Company for plastics and other commodities. Nothing is wasted but the little smell that you notice in the atmosphere. These are some of the things that are being done, and they rather convince

Conservation
one that we are becoming more careful, and that general conservation methods are being applied.
Of course when you come to deal with any specific item of natural resources you find that is something that belongs to the provinces and about which they are very jealous. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), when he was premier of Ontario, attended a dominion-provincial conference here and I remember-and I just looked it up to see how correct my memory was- that he enumerated the responsibilities of the provinces and what the provinces were doing, and the trained forces of civil servants they had built up to do that. I have no doubt that he remembers it, too. It is to be found on page 589 of the proceedings of the conference of 1945. After enumerating some other things he had this to say about natural resources:
Ours is the responsibility for the development of the vast resources which made production possible in this country during the war. Nothing that the dominion government did. nor has been called upon to do in the past in the way of technical development, laid the foundation for that huge production from the natural resources. That was the result of the development and supervision of these resources by the provincial governments throughout the years.
He described other provincial responsibilities, and went on to say:
I have only touched a part of the field that, until the compact of confederation is torn to pieces -and I too use the word compact-must be the responsibility of the provinces. Until the compact of confederation is torn to pieces, and please God it never will be, but until that is done, if these things are to be done at all they must be done by the provincial government. And to do these things, since long before confederation, the provincial governments have been building up skilled, highly trained and unselfish civil service organizations to carry out these great public responsibilities.
Well, here I rather shy away from using the expression "national policy" in connection with things of that kind. There are people who think that, when you use the term "national policy", there is some way in which the central authority is going to reach out and try to draw to itself some of the provincial jurisdiction. We do not want to do that. We want to have this country continue under the constitution that was set up, and we do want to co-operate with the provinces. There have been many declarations in the course of this debate of the extent to which this co-operation is working to the advantage of the whole Canadian public at the present time. There is on the order paper now a resolution to have enabling legislation which would permit the dominion government to co-operate and collaborate with the provinces in connection with the

conservation of water resources. There is the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has provided a method whereby there was co-operation between the central and provincial governments on smaller, more localized projects.
Well, we want to create an atmosphere that will remove this fear that there is any attempt by the central government, whatever party may be in power, to reach out and take away from provincial administrations the responsibilities and jurisdiction which, by the constitution, are theirs.
I have not quite the same misgivings as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) about the terms of this resolution. It asks that we consider calling a dominion-provincial conference to bring about a greater degree of collaboration and co-operation. Well, we are quite prepared to consider that. But we do not think it would be apt to produce very great results to do it right away or to do it on any wide scale. Let us continue to demonstrate, by the co-operation that will be taking place, that there are no ulterior motives in doing it, and that it is merely a genuine desire of Canadian citizens, to whatever administration they belong, to help the Canadian people of this generation discharge the responsibility they have to Canadian people of future generations to see that the resources of this country are not depleted, but are maintained, and will be available to be used by them, and will have increased productivity as the size of our population increases.
I think we can accept this recommendation that consideration be given to that. But I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) would himself agree that it would be better to have the house give consideration to this enabling provision, so that when we have a conference with them we can say to them, "The Canadian parliament has authorized us to go thus far with you to help you take the proper measures for the conservation of water resources".
I fully agree with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) that the conservation of water resources depends upon proper forest cover over a large part of the soil of Canada. The hon. member said this was an industry that contributed largely to the federal exchequer; but it is also the property of the provincial governments and makes very substantial contributions to the revenues of those provincial governments. I am sure they are very jealous of their control over the policies that are to be in force and carried on.
The hon. member has had much more experience than I with what is going on in that connection; but I think we would both

feel that the provincial governments have been doing very well, and that they have been enacting and administering pretty wise legislation for the proper management of their property, their forests on which they grant cutting rights, evidently renewable but cutting rights, only. The hon. member said that this goes on. I know that up in the lake St. John district, where I was, it has been going on now for a century, and that there are now growths that are better and more productive than the first that were taken off those same lands.
That is something that is progressive. We do not find in one year, or even in one decade, the situation they have in Sweden. It is the result of experience, and experience means trial and error. Some mistakes are made. Mistakes are corrected. You add one satisfactory experience to another satisfactory experience.
On the whole I think the warnings given by those who have written about the depletion of our resources are good and healthy warnings; but they must not induce too deep a pessimism in any of us. Because I do think that, given peace in our days, the management of the resources of this country is going to be sufficiently wise to enable us to look forward to a very substantial increase in population, without feeling that there are not going to be enough of those resources available for those generations to exploit and pass on to the generation that will follow them.
Once again, to all those who have taken part in this debate I hope I may, without sounding at all impertinent, offer congratulations, even thanks. I do so because I think it is a good thing from time to time in this troubled world, with all the international problems we worry about, to give some thought and attention to the brighter side of the picture, and to quicken somewhat that desire we have to do what appears to be necessary as our part toward preserving peace in our day, so that the conservation policies being applied and developed, and which should be expanded, will be productive of those results for the future generations which so many of us say, and so often, seem to have been in the designs of Providence for the people of Canada.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate, but some of the things said have made me feel that perhaps one more matter should be brought to the attention of the house and country.
It has been conveyed to me, on what I consider good authority, that about the only way we can be really sure of retaining the 68108-59
Conservation
fertility of the soil is through having introduced into the soil from time to time organic matter from animals. I have been told that one may put fertilizers-nitrates, phosphates, and the rest of them-on the soil, and probably force a crop, but that ultimately soil bacteria will play a part which we must not overlook in the retention of soil fertility.
Having laid down this general principle, which I believe to be sound, I would draw the attention of the house and country once again to what I consider a dangerous trend in this nation in respect of the dairy industry. I am afraid we are neglecting that industry in a way which will probably cast upon us a certain amount of reflection in the minds of those who succeed us. People these days are so anxious to save five cents-practically all of us are that way-that they are ready to use margarine freely rather than pay additional money for butter. By reason of that fact it looks as though our dairy industry is going to suffer seriously. There are signs that this result has occurred and is occurring to a greater degree.
It has been brought to my attention that notwithstanding the introduction of margarine there are more dairy stock in Canada per capita than we had before we started using margarine. I am not just sure what may be the significance of that fact. It may be that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and certain other factors have entered into the matter, but if we continue to use the products of vegetable oils instead of butter I cannot see how our dairying industry can be maintained in the healthy condition it was in before we began using margarine and vegetable oils so freely.
I am quite sure that nearly everybody wishes he knew the solution. I am not prepared to suggest what is the solution. I believe that two provinces in our nation have forbidden the use of margarine. I am not quite ready to agree with what they have done, though it may be found in the long run that they have been wise in their decision. It has been suggested that subsidies be paid to help the dairy industry. I have not given the matter sufficient study and thought to be able to feel competent to make any recommendation in that respect.
But I do make this observation once more, that we in Canada should most earnestly study ways and means whereby we can have a greater number of dairy cows. It must be borne in mind that it will be quite impossible to conserve the fertility of our soil for future generations, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has so admirably expressed it, unless we have a large number of livestock on our farms.

Conservation
As a minor illustration of how serious this may be may I say that I suppose most hon. members have lived in a time when horses instead of tractors were used on our farms. Everyone knows that by the use of horses we were returning fertility to the soil in several ways. But now we no longer use horses as formerly and as a consequence that amount of fertility is not being returned to the soil. We operate barren tractors today, and the only thing that goes on the land is some burned oil which is more likely to impair the effectiveness of soil bacteria, or even destroy them, than to help them.
We cannot, afford to fail to take cognizance of all these facts as we contemplate a policy for conserving the fertility of the soil. I feel
that I have made my contribution, and it is this: we simply must give more attention to the preservation of our dairy industry.
On motion of Mr. Hodgson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will proceed with the resolution to set up a committee to examine national defence expenditures. We will then take up the resolutions and bills standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 13, 1953