1953-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the third report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. Ill, to incorporate the Mercantile Bank of Canada.-Mr. Macnaughton.


ARMED FORCES


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	How many men have applied for enlistment in the Canadian armed forces during the last 12 months?
2.	Of these, how many (a) were rejected on psychiatric grounds; (b) were accepted?
3.	Of those who were accepted, how many (a) were later discharged; (b) were discharged on psychiatric grounds?
4.	How many men have been repatriated from Korea for medical reasons?
5.	Of these, how many were on psychiatric grounds?
6.	What preventive measures are being taken at recruiting centres to minimize the entry into the Canadian armed forces of psychologically unsuitable personnel?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	During the period November 1, 1951, to October 31, 1952, 55,491 applications for enrolment as other ranks were disposed of,
i.e., accepted or rejected by the three services.
2.	(a) 576.
(b)	26,596.
3.	(a) Total releases from the Canadian armed forces for the period November 1, 1951, to October 31, 1952, were 12,495.
(b) During the same period 926 were released from the Canadian armed forces for reasons classified as psychoses, psychoneurotic disorders or disorders of character, behaviour or intelligence.
4.	1,267.
5.	189 for the same reasons listed under 3
(b)	above.
6.	A documentary check of each recruit's background is made. Aptitude and general intelligence tests are given. If at any time during the examinations it appears that a prospective recruit might not be suitable, he is examined by the neuro-psychiatric consultant. The army has just introduced a comprehensive personality test for recruits specifically designed to reveal psychological weaknesses. The success of this test will determine whether it will have a wider application.



ARMED SERVICES


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What are the educational standards at present required for enlistment in the (a) navy; (b) army;
(c)	air force?
2.	On what date were these educational requirements put into effect?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Educational standards required for the enrolment of men in the Canadian armed forces as at January 31, 1953.
Navy: The educational standard for the enrolment of men in the Royal Canadian Navy is successful completion of elementary schooling. Educational standards required for the enrolment of tradesmen are higher depending on the particular trade.
Army: The suitability of applicants for enrolment in the Canadian army is tested by aptitude and intelligence tests.
Air Force: The educational standard for the enrolment of men in the Royal Canadian Air Force is successful completion of elementary schooling. Aircrew trainees must have a minimum of junior matriculation to be eligible for enrolment, although a candidate with one year less than junior matriculation will be considered if he has other compensating attributes.
Veterans of the Canadian armed forces and skilled tradesmen are given special consideration for enrolment in the services.
2.	Navy: early 1948; Army: since 13 November, 1951; Air Force: enrolment of men, January, 1951; enrolment of aircrew, since 31 May, 1952.

Questions



FERGUSON GULLY, N.B., DREDGING

Mr. Robichaud:: Will the dredging operations at Ferguson gully, in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, for which an amount of $32,000 was provided in the 1952-53 estimates, be performed during 1953, by a departmentally-owned (P.W.D.) plant?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Dredging is being considered for performance by departmentally-owned plant.



GRAIN PERMITS, 1951-52

Mr. Juiras:: 1.	During the crop year 1951-52, what was the number of grain permits issued in each of the three western provinces?
2.	During the same period, what was the farmers' monthly marketing of wheat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
Approximate
monthly period	Manitoba
Aug. 1-Aug. 30	 668,223
Aug. 31-Sept. 27	 7,605,626
Sept. 28-Nov. 1	 16,266,666
Nov. 2-Nov. 29	 3,721,330
Nov. 30-Dec. 27	 2,529,310
Dec. 28-Jan. 31	 2,426,926
Feb. 1-Feb. 28	 1,446,458
Feb. 29-Apr. 3	 1,948,302
Apr. 4-May 1	 1,986,957
May 2-May 29	 2,091,753
May 30-July 3	 2,120,670
July 4-July 31	 1,540,865
Total	 44,353,086


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	The number of Canadian wheat board delivery permits issued to producers in each of the three western provinces during the crop year 1951-52 was as follows:
Manitoba	 43,227
Saskatchewan	 114,459
Alberta	 73,342
Total	 231,028
2.	Official grain marketings as issued by the board of grain commissioners for Canada are compiled on a weekly basis and not by months. Producers' marketings of wheat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during the crop year 1951-52, by approximate calendar months, as accumulated from official weekly figures, were as follows:
Saskatchewan	Alberta	Total
(Bushels)		
2,322,290	2,027,812	5,018,32522,887,250	8,498,872	38,991,74864,933,232	27,554,860	108,754,75818,659,440	10,922,579	33,303,34919,727,453	12,046,982	34,303,74517,342,821	7,634,621	27,404,36812,802,292	7,208,619	21,457,36915,493,575	7,094,560	24,536,43719,750,083	11,248,756	32,985,79631,084,041	16,754,374	49,930,16826,505,355	11,695,402	40,321,42720,485,324	9,745,653	31,771,842271,993,156	132,433,090	448,779,332



GAGETOWN TRAINING AREA-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many properties belonging to individuals will it be necessary for the Department of National Defence to purchase in the proposed Gagetown military training area?
2.	How many offers for purchase have already been made to date, and how many have been accepted?
3.	What factors is the department taking into consideration as a basis for the purchase price of these properties?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	As a number of transfers and subdivisions have been carried out without formal record being made at the registry offices it is not possible at this time to say how many properties belonging to individuals will be affected. The searching of titles to establish ownership is continuing.
TMr. Campney.]
2.	As of February 1, approximately 125 letters containing offers of settlement have been sent to occupants.
3.	In considering the amount of settlement, the following are taken into account:
(a)	the appraised value of the land;
(b)	the appraised value of timber;
(c)	the appraised value of buildings;
(d)	compensation for disturbance, where applicable.



ALVIN BUILDING, VANCOUVER-WASHROOM FACILITIES

Mr. Green:: 1.	Are washroom facilities available in the Alvin building, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the use of persons waiting to interview employees of the national employment service or the unemployment insurance commission?
2.	If not, will provision be made for such facilities?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	No. The Department of Public Works does not provide public washrooms in government buildings under its jurisdiction.



NORLITE BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the monthly or yearly rate paid by the government for the lease of the Norlite building, in the city of Ottawa?
2.	From whom is the said building being rented?
3.	Who are the owners of the property?
4.	If the owners are a limited company, who are the president, the secretary and the directors of the said company?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$95,661 per annum.
2.	Wittington Investments Limited.
3.	Wittington Investments Limited.
4.	No information.



UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr. Knight:: 1.	Has the government received a brief from the National Federation of Canadian University Students, asking for action on the Massey commission's report in regard to university scholarships?
2.	If so, has it been considered and what action is proposed?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government is continuing to study the recommendation on scholarships and other recommendations of the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences and when decisions are made on these aspects of the report they will be announced by the government in the same manner as were the previous implementations of the recommendations such as those on the national gallery, the national library and financial aid to universities.



R.C.A.F.-CONVERSION OF SQUADRONS FROM

[Stage Direction]
CF-lOO's TO f-86 sabres
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Have any Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons originally intended to be equipped with CF-100 aircraft been converted to F-86 Sabres instead?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Has this resulted in a change in the role for which these squadrons were originally intended?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.



VESICULAR EXANTHEMA

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	In what areas in the United States is vesicular exanthema of hogs now present?
Questions
2.	What measures, if any, have been taken to protect the Canadian hog industry against the entry of this disease into Canada when the import of pork products from the United States is again permitted after March 1?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	According to information released by the United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, on January 26, 1953, vesicular exanthema is present in the following states:
California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas.
2.	The importation of swine, pork and pork products were restricted under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act by order in council P.C. 1234 of March 3, 1952. However, owing to the existence in several states of the United States of America of vesicular exanthema and in order to prevent the introduction of the disease into Canada, a ministerial order, under authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act was issued on August 29, 1952, prohibiting the importation of any swine, uncooked pork, uncooked pork products, pork offal and garbage from the United States. It is not the intention of the department to rescind this order until the disease is under effective control in the United States.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many applicants were there for military service in (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952?
2.	How many of these were rejected in (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952?
3.	How many of these rejections were for medical reasons in (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952?


Mr. Campney:: 1. The number of applications for enrolment as men (not including withdrawals of applications made by the individuals themselves) during the periods in question were: 1950	1951	1952 Total57,364	68,478	54,915	180,7572.	Of these applications, the following were rejected:1950	1951	1952	Total39,017	35,061	29,171	103,2493.	Of the applications rejected, the following were for medical reasons:1950	1951	1952	Total
4,436
8,287
7,993
20,716

Questions
"operation smack"


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Were Canadian troops engaged in "Operation Smack" in Korea?
2.	Did the attack include jet dive bombing, artillery barrage and tank support for the infantry?
3.	Did newspaper correspondents and senior officers watch the operation?
4.	Were they handed a seven page timetable?
5.	Was this timetable bound in cardboard covers with a three-colour front page decoration?
6.	Did one of the pages have a heading entitled "Scenario"?
7.	Was this attack successful?
8.	How many U.N. troops were killed, as a result of this operation?
9.	How many U.N. troops are missing or wounded, as a result of this operation?


Mr. Campney:: 1 to 9. No Canadian troops took part in "Operation Smack"; consequently the Canadian government has no information relating to this matter beyond what has appeared in the press.
25th BRIGADE



SOUTH KOREAN TROOPS

Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Have South Korean soldiers been attached to the 25th Canadian brigade?
2.	If so, are they serving as separate platoons or companies within the brigade?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Churchill:: What are the total Canadian casualties in Korea up to and including the 31st of January, 1953?


Ralph Osborne Campney: 1,335.



ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, R.C.A.F.    LETTER FROM CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many copies of the circular letter addressed to reserve, retired and former members of the Royal Canadian Air Force, over the signature of W. A. Curtis, air marshal, chief of the air staff, and dated Ottawa, August 1952, were issued?
2.	Was this letter marked secret or confidential?
3.	Did this letter, on page 2, contain a statement as to the total cost of electronic equipment purchased, including microwave ground circuits, and ultra-high frequency ground-to-air, and air-to-air circuits?
4.	If so, what were the amounts quoted?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Approximately 110,000.
2.	No.
3 and 4. The relevant phrases appear to be: "Telecommunications is the new term for the old and honourable trade of signals and
(Mr. Campney.]
covers all electronics except those which are integral parts of armament systems". "The cost of all this equipment is in the order of $150,000,000 of which at least $125,000,000 is being spent right here in Canada-a tribute to our growing electronics industry."



ARMY TRUCKS AND JEEPS

Mr. Fair:: 1.	Is it compulsory for army trucks and jeeps to carry licence plates?
2.	If so, are such plates issued by the province in which the vehicles are located?
3.	Are army vehicles subject to traffic regulations laid down by the province in which they operate?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	It is not compulsory to register army trucks and jeeps owned by the crown with the provincial authorities. However, it is considered desirable to register all military vehicles with the province in which they are located.
2.	All licence plates are issued annually by the province in which the vehicle is permanently located, except in those provinces which issue permanent military markers.
3.	No. However, service drivers are required by departmental regulation to comply with local laws and regulations respecting the conduct of vehicles.



GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.  POST OFFICE REVENUES

Albany M. Robichaud: What were the revenues of the following post offices, in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, during each and every year beginning with the year 1945, up to and including the year 1952: (a) Bathurst; (b) East Bathurst; (c) West Bathurst; (d) South Bathurst; (e) Caraquet; (f) Lameque; (g) Shippigan; (h) Tracadie?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: This information may be obtained from the annual reports of the Postmaster General-Part II, alphabetical list of post offices in Canada and their revenues, tabled in the house.



PRINTING BUREAU


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received any representations asking that experienced typographers who are capable of operating teletype perforators be given the opportunity to do such work at the government printing bureau?
2.	If so, what are the terms of such representations?
3.	What consideration has been given to any such representations?


Mr. Bradley:: 1. A copy of resolution No. 5 adopted at the eighth conference of Ontario federation of printing trades union was very recently received.

2.	That typographers be given the opportunity to operate teletype perforators installed in the public printing and stationery department.
3.	The resolution will be given consideration.



CANADIAN FORCES, KOREA AND GERMANY   POSTAL RATES

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Are reduced postal rates in effect on magazines and other reading matter directed to the troops serving in (a) Korea; (b) Germany?
2.	Does this reduced postal rate apply to reading material originating outside Canada, e.g. Life, Saturday Evening Post, etc.?
3.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) Yes.
2.	Yes, when mailed in Canada.
3.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ELEVATOR COMPANIES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What elevator companies showed (a) shortages; (b) overages, of grain, for the crop year ending July 31, 1952?
2.	What was the shortage or overage for wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax, shown by each company?



ABBOTSFORD-COMOX AIRPORTS

Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Abbotsford airport, as of December 31, 1952?
2.	How many hangars are available?
3.	What accommodation is available for (a) officers; (b) other ranks?
4.	How many of all ranks are now stationed at the airport?
5.	Is the airport made use of? If not, for what reason?
6.	How many (a) officers; (b) other ranks are now stationed at the Comox airport?
7.	How many contracts were let for hangars or other buildings at the Comox airport?



ABBOTSFORD AIRPORT


Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	What firms or individuals submitted tenders on 49-2-6-134, painting Abbotsford airport, and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	How many buildings were to be painted?
3.	Was it to be a spray and brush job? If so, how many coats?
4.	Who was the inspector in charge, what salary does he receive?
5.	Is he in constant attendance during the implementation of the contract? If not, for what reason?



RAILWAY SERVICE, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud:: 1. Are any steps being taken by the authorities of the Canadian National Railways to cancel the only
Orders for Returns
passenger-express daily train service between Bathurst and Tracadie, via Shippigan, in the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what are the plans of the post office department for the daily mail deliveries at Grande Anse, Caraquet, Shippigan, Inkerman and Tracadie in the said county?
3.	Will provision be made by the authorities of the Canadian National Railways for the operation of a daily freight train from Bathurst to Tracadie, via Shippigan and return?
4.	If not, what other system of freight delivery is being considered?
5.	Have the authorities of the Canadian National Railways given any study or consideration to the advisability and/or feasibility of making deliveries of express and freight destined to the islands of Shippigan and Miscou, county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, by automobile trucks operating between Shippigan, Canadian National station and the above-mentioned islands?



BRONZE PROPELLERS

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	Were any bronze propellers purchased from Canadian Sumner Iron Works of Vancouver, in May or June, 1952?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	At what price each?
4.	Were tenders invited for these?
5.	If so, what tenders were received?



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Johnston:: 1. Were any telegrams received by the Prime Minister and/or other ministers of the government, during the month of January, 1953, from the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan, regarding an increase in family allowances?
2.	If so, how many?



BURRARD DRY DOCK, NORTH VANCOUVER

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How much money was paid to the Burrard Dry Dock, in North Vancouver, in the years 1951 and 1952?
2.	Were tenders called for all work done?
3.	If so, what firms tendered and at what price?



PUREBRED BULLS, QUEBEC

Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: 1.	What was the number of purebred bulls bought in the province of Quebec by the federal Department of Agriculture during the last ten years?
2.	What was the number of bulls of each breed bought in the district of Quebec and the district of Montreal, respectively, during the last ten years?
3.	What was the price paid for each bull?
4.	What are the names of the sellers and what was the number of head sold by each of them during the last ten years?
5.	What was the number of bulls loaned in each of the districts of Quebec and Montreal during the last ten years?

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE CO.

Mr. Goode:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Trans Mountain Oil Company, in connection with construction of an oil pipe line from British Columbia to the United States.
He said:	May I ask that this notice of
motion be dropped?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



AGREEMENT RESPECTING SALE OF GRAIN

Mr. Ross (Souris):: For a copy of any agreement since January 1. 1950, between the Canadian wheat board and the Winnipeg grain and produce clearing association, with respect to the sale of wheat or other grains.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the Winnipeg grain and produce clearing association. Therefore, there are no such documents to be produced. I might explain that the wheat board owns membership in the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange Clearance Association Limited, and as with any other member of that association, the relationship of the association and the board is governed by the bylaws of the association. Since there is no agreement there is nothing to be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



ACCOUNTING METHODS

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: For a copy of all correspondence or recorded communications from the 1st day of April, 1951, to date between the Auditor General and (a) the Department of National Defence; (b) the Department of Finance, respecting methods of accounting.



NATIONAL DEFENCE, PRAIRIE COMMAND   SHORTAGES, ETC.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all reports made to the Department of National Defence regarding (a) shortages; (b) waste and extravagant spending, in connection with defence projects and supplies in the prairie command, since the first day of October, 1952, to date.


Mr. Claxion:: I think that the hon. member for Lake Centre and the Solicitor General have had some conversation on this motion and have agreed that it should stand.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is correct. I thought he was going to rise, and I was waiting for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



WILSON PRACTICE BOMB

Mr. Harkness:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and other documents in connection with the 111 lb. practice bomb (cartridge type), otherwise known as the Wilson practice bomb, used by the Royal Canadian Air Force, during the second world war.


Brooke Claxton: It has been pointed out to the hon. member for Calgary East that the file of correspondence includes the court record, and it is very voluminous indeed. On the understanding that this is made available to the hon. member and he will indicate what he wants we shall be glad to have the motion carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the statement of the Minister of National Defence.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all communications of any kind, dated since January 1, 1951, between the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the federal government and the minister of health and public welfare of Manitoba, or between any officials writing on their behalf, in connection with the making of recoveries in respect of alleged overpayments made under the former old age pensions act, and also in connection with the effecting of recoveries from the estates of deceased pensioners formerly in receipt of pensions under the former old age pensions act.


Mr. Martin:: I think this motion can be accepted, subject to the usual practice of obtaining the consent of the province, the other party concerned, before tabling the material asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think you will have any trouble getting it.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of a news story which appeared in the issue of the Saint John Evening Times-Globe for Saturday, February 7, 1953, dealing with alleged looting of army installations on Partridge island in Saint John harbour? If so, has any investigation been conducted, and with what result?


Brooke Claxton: During the war a troop of third New Brunswick coast defence regiment

occupied Partridge island, manning two guns. Their operational role terminated May 31, 1945, and a detachment was left on the island until all equipment was removed.
The buildings not required by the army were removed or declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, who acknowledge our declaration of surplus for: eight buildings to the value of $3,390; plumbing, heating and electrical fixtures, $785.75; and 980 feet of six-inch sewer pipe at $2,450, for a total of $6,625.75.
This surplus declaration included 3,225 feet of underground electric power cable for which no value was shown. The records of the department show that there are still vested in the Department of National Defence a number of buildings which could not be removed or declared surplus, including searchlight emplacements, gun emplacements, a workshop and engine room, a radar building, a regimental aid post, an officers' quarters and mess and a power plant.
The general officer commanding eastern command has given us the information that all equipment and stores of any value to the army were removed by the army from these buildings. We have not been able to get any additional information owing to a breakdown in telephone communications between here and Fredericton, but as soon as I get a full report I shall be glad to give it to the house.



ALLEGED ROBBING OF WOUNDED KOREAN VETERANS AT SEATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that a number of wounded Korean veterans were mercilessly robbed of their belongings at a disembarkation point near Seattle last Thursday? If so, what is being done to have this matter investigated and a repetition prevented?
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National
Defence):	Perhaps I should answer the
question, as the Solicitor General is not yet Associate Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I beg your pardon.


Brooke Claxton: Our attention has been
drawn to this matter, and a thorough investigation is being made into it. The hon. member and the house will appreciate that since this occurred in the United States our inquiry must be made to the United States service authorities, and any representations would be made to them.
South Saskatchewan River Project


John George Diefenbaker: Is there a foundation for the news report?


Brooke Claxton: I have not heard yet.



IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) that the house go into committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I had not
intended to address the house on the South Saskatchewan river project at this time. I had thought that in all probability it would be discussed on my estimates, or at a time when the government was making some report with regard to the commission's report. However, an amendment has been moved to the motion to go into supply, and also an amendment to the amendment.
Some remarks have been made in discussing those amendments which make it necessary for me to make some comment. I would in the first place call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the amendment reads as follows:
I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) -
And this was the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that in the estimates presented to this house no provision has been made for immediately proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam."
Well, there is a provision in the estimates for an expenditure similar to that of last year. There has been no decision reached as to whether the expenditure will be made. But the statement contained in the amendment is not a statement of fact; and therefore if members have no other reasons for voting against it, they certainly would vote against it on the ground that it is not a correct statement of fact.
In addition to that, an amendment to the amendment was moved in these words:
That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"as recommended by the federal government's P.F.R.A. engineers."
Well, the federal government's P.F.R.A. engineers have made no recommendation in connection with this matter whatsoever. It is not their mission. It is not their duty to make recommendations. They are asked for
1734	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project reports on possible projects across western Canada, and any recommendations that are made are made here, by the minister, and not by P.F.R.A. engineers. So again I suggest that the amendment to the amendment is not based upon the facts as they exist, and therefore there could be no good reason for anyone voting either for the amendment or the amendment to the amendment. They are both statements of situations which do not exist.
But in view of the fact that amendments have been moved and that there have been discussions, and in view of the fact that for a long time the views of everyone who has been associated with public affairs in the province of Saskatchewan in particular, and in the western provinces in general, have been pretty well established, perhaps I should make' a few comments.
There is no necessity for me, on this occasion, to attempt to indicate to the house what my own views on this question are. I am on record in every session of the Saskatchewan legislature from 1916 until I came to this House of Commons in 1936; and that being the case, there would be no way of my avoiding that record which is known both to the newspapers of western Canada and to individuals concerned about the voting in western Canada. Anyone can look up the sessional papers and find out what position was taken over the years in relation to this particular question. All I am going to say at the moment is that on no occasion, at any time, either while an election was on or while an election was not on, have I stated that the South Saskatchewan river dam was going to be built.
I have on many occasions indicated that investigation is being made into the possibility of building it. I have on certain occasions indicated that, so far as I myself am concerned, I have been convinced that a dam can be built. But at no time has it been stated that the government has entered into any such arrangement or has undertaken to enter into any such arrangement. I intend to give the reasons as to why that is the case, as I go along.
I think in the first place I should perhaps give a very short review of what the history of the question has been. A short review would take me back a long time; but it does not require more than one sentence with regard to each matter in order to remind the house of what is involved historically in the discussion of this question.
Many years ago-as a matter of fact very shortly after confederation-a very definite


stand was taken with regard to land and resources in western Canada. The government of Sir John A. Macdonald took the position that we should follow the practice of the United States and make the land available to the railway companies in order to induce the construction of national railway lines across the Dominion of Canada. He followed that policy during tall the time he was in office, and made available something in the neighbourhood of 38 million acres, a very great part of which was taken from what is now the province of Saskatchewan- what was then the Northwest Territories-in order to encourage the building of national railways.
During that period of time the Liberal party took the position that this should not be done, that this was a national undertaking and that provision for that kind of thing should be made out of the treasury of Canada. When the Liberal party came into office in 1896 they changed the policy and determined upon a policy of making cash grants instead of land grants.
And so by 1904, as a result of that policy, they established the building of another line of railway from one end of Canada to the other, and in order to secure the building of that line they put up cash grants.
These are the two facts, away back at the beginning of the history, of this development which I think we have to keep in mind at this time. Then, in 1905, one year after the arrangement was made for the construction of this great national railway on the basis of cash grants, the government of the day set up two new provinces, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. At that time they determined that while they were not going to make any more land grants to railways, and were not involving themselves in anything of that kind, that they were going to utilize the land of the western prairies, administered from Ottawa, for the purpose of encouraging settlement in the Dominion of Canada-the natural argument being that, the railways once having been constructed, and the great undertakings resulting having been developed from one end of Canada to the other, the lands should be retained rather than administered by the provinces. It was maintained at Ottawa that national problems could best be assisted if settlement were based on lands administered from Ottawa.
Well, settlement was carried out based on the previous areas and experiences from the beginning until 1908. It came about in 1908 that the area known as the Palliser triangle which had not been settled prior to that time-homesteading was not allowed in that

area, grants were not made to the railways in that area; settlement was discouraged, except for purposes of ranching, and grants of land were leased for ranching purposes over that area. In 1908 they decided to throw open these lands for settlement, not only settlement on the basis of homesteading, but the government of the day decided to sell 160-acre pre-emptions to any person who was homesteading in order to give him twice as much land as he would have under the policy which had been followed up to then.
I recite the details of these policies in order to show that up to that time there had been a very definite difference of opinion as between the two groups on different sides of this house. The Conservative party of that time had taken the position that making grants of land to the railroads was the proper thing to do, but when the new provinces were set up they took the position that the land should not be reserved to be administered from Ottawa, but should be administered by the provinces themselves. There was such wide division of policy on the part of the parties which resulted in the Conservative party in Saskatchewan changing its name to "provincial righters". As provincial righters they maintained that the lands and resources should be returned to the provinces and administered by the provinces.
As I said a moment ago, I have been associated with politics in the province of Saskatchewan ever since it was set up. During the early history of the province I took the position, along with other Liberals, that the proper thing to do was to have lands and resources administered by the provincial government, and more particularly prior to the period when it was decided to open up the Palliser triangle.
In 1912, just after a change of government, additions were made to three provinces in Canada, the province of Manitoba, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. That suggestion had been made prior to the change in government by the Laurier government of the day, but it was brought into being by the government of Sir Robert Borden. When it was brought into being it was provided that the resources of these areas would be turned over to the provinces.
They did not follow the practice which the government had followed previously of retaining the resources to be administered from Ottawa, but turned them over to those three provinces. From there on all the parties in western Canada took the position that, since the policy had been changed at Ottawa, the government should follow the
South Saskatchewan River Project same policy in connection with resources and lands of the prairie provinces.
Discussions with regard to this went on for some time and it was during the period from 1916 down to the time when I left Regina that I am on record fully with regard to my own position in connection with the whole matter. But in 1929, the then prime minister of Canada, the late Mr. King, made representations to the governments of the three prairie provinces to the effect that they had decided that the natural resources should be returned to the provinces.
I was then the premier of the province of Saskatchewan and I was a supporter of the Liberal party, both provincially and federally. When that offer was made to the government of the province of Saskatchewan I came to Ottawa, along with other members of the Saskatchewan government, and interviewed the government of the Dominion of Canada. They made certain proposals to us under which we were asked to take the control of the natural resources. We refused and we gave our reasons for refusing. We said that during the period when the lands and resources had been administered from Ottawa some 38 million acres of land had been alienated; that large areas of forests had been alienated; that large areas of mining property had been transferred to activities elsewhere and that in asking the provinces to administer the remnant we were being asked to maintain an organization in order to conserve forests which had been alienated and to take care of land which had been settled and much which in all probability would not be settled because it was the least acceptable. We contended that a great deal of expense would be involved.
So we said that the federal government should not only turn over the resources, they should turn over with them certain funds. The reaction of Mr. King to that suggestion was to appoint a royal commission. That royal commission was headed by the Hon. Alphonse Turgeon, then chief justice of the province of Saskatchewan. An election was held a few months later and Mr. King's government was defeated.
Mr. Bennett came into office and decided to continue the commission, but he continued it with a little different personnel. He removed Mr. Justice Turgeon and put in his place another judge, Mr. Justice Bigelow, who functioned on the commission. That commission sat for about four years and a half. By the time it reported we were back in office.

South Saskatchewan River Project
I should have said that while we did not take the natural resources in 1929, the new government in the province of Saskatchewan was offered them on the same terms as we and they accepted the offer in 1930 and 1931. It was in discussing the question of acceptance that we indicated great opposition to the taking over of the resources by the government of the day on that basis. As I said, the commissions were appointed.
That report was not made until we had come back into office. The report provided that, in so far as Alberta was concerned, certain suggestions were accepted by Alberta. In so far as Manitoba was concerned, certain suggestions were made which were accepted. In so far as Saskatchewan was concerned, it was recommended that we take $5 million as payment. Mr. Justice Bigelow, who had been appointed by Mr. Bennett, said that the amount should be approximately $35 million, but the other commissioners agreed on $5 million.
The government of the day refused to accept the $5 million. I may say in passing that that amount was not accepted until 1948. I shall give some reasons as I go along why it might have been accepted then. We had spent a great deal of money in the rehabilitation of the western parts of Canada between 1935 and 1948.
That is the history of what happened down to 1935 excepting that we had one of the worst depressions in Saskatchewan and western Canada from 1931 down to 1939 that had ever been experienced. I think everyone in western Canada, no matter to what party he belonged, and everyone who was associated with government in Canada became convinced by what had happened that there was something wrong with the methods under which that particular section of Canada known as the Palliser triangle had been settled.
I remember coming down to Ottawa after the change of government and suggesting to the prime minister of the day, the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, that the commitments which had been undertaken by the previous government should be met by Ottawa. During the discussions I was asked for an opinion as to whether I thought people would be able to live in that section of the country. Mr. Bennett naturally referred to the position he had taken in 1908 when he said that these lands should remain as lands occupied by ranchers who were producing cattle, that they should not be broken up.
But after we had discussed the matter for two days and called in representatives of the

two largest banks, the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank, one because they were the bankers of Canada and the other because they were the bankers of Saskatchewan, it was determined that the federal government ought to pay the bill and they did pay it. Then it was determined that in all probability nothing better could be done than to go along and see that these areas were rehabilitated, and therefore that matter might be discussed. That was 1934. But out of that discussion I think the whole Dominion of Canada came to the conclusion -certainly all members of the house of that day did so because they so determined when we were discussing the matter-that that area had not been settled in the manner in which it should have been settled, and that some of the responsibility for the position in which we found ourselves was a national or federal responsibility and therefore something ought to be done to rehabilitate the area.
When the Conservatives were in office in 1935 they brought in a bill. It was a short bill. It provided for the setting up of a committee. That committee had on it representatives of all the landholding organizations in western Canada and even organizations that had lent money on land- banking organizations, commercial companies, the Hudson's Bay Company, the railways that owned lands, and so on. The bill also provided for the naming to the committee of representatives of the municipal organizations. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) was one of the men who were made members of the committee at the time. It was also suggested that representatives of the three provinces be included on the committee. This board was set up under the act of 1935.
I have a copy of the act here. It is not necessary to read it because I think most members recall it and understand it; but if one reads the act one will find that the boards was entrusted with the task of saying what they thought ought to be done. The government of the day provided three-quarters of a million dollars for the first year and $1 million for each of the next four years following in order to carry on rehabilitation work on the western prairies. During the period when we were battling in the election campaign of 1935 we took certain attitudes with regard to this intention. Those of us who represented the attitude of the provincial government of Saskatchewan of that day took the position that that amount of money was not sufficient to provide for the necessary rehabilitation of western Canada and that five years was too short a period

over which to make the expenditure. We so claimed throughout the whole period of the election campaign.
We were somewhat critical of the fact that the bill only covered five years and only provided a small amount of money, approximately $5 million, which was about the same as the commission had recommended. We said that we were not satisfied. When we made that statement our attention was immediately called to the fact that a greater amount had been paid by way of relief on the western prairies during the three or four preceding years than had ever been paid before. The moneys had been paid under the administration of the Anderson government of the day and with the assistance of the Conservative government at Ottawa. It was said to us. What is going to happen to that relief if a Liberal government comes into office? We said that so far as we were concerned when we came to Ottawa we would advocate even greater relief than was being provided by the government of the day.
To make a long story short, we came to Ottawa and as a result of the campaign that had been put on I was invited to Ottawa as minister of agriculture and told that my chief duty would be the administration of the P.F.R.A. as a part of the agricultural policy and that from time to time I would be expected to recommend to the government of Canada policies under which we could proceed in that direction. That was not the simplest thing to do in those days. You know, there is no use of my saying it was a Conservative point of view because I think the Conservatives would be equally justified, and possibly more justified, in saying that the Liberals agreed. In those days most people, when they took a look at an investment that was going to be made either by an individual or by a government, agreed with the suggestion that when money was to be expended on any particular project it should be done on the basis of whether it was going to be economically sound in the sense that it would pay interest upon the money which was invested.
I must say that when I came to Ottawa most people held that point of view. All I am going to say today is that when I came before the house and asked to have the sum of money taken out of the bill it took me about a year and a half to get the consent of the house to do that, and when they did so they did not take out the limitation on time. In 1937 they said:	You still have
three years to go and at the end of that three years we will have another look at it. At the end of the three years they took out
South Saskatchewan River Project the limitation on time. All I wish to say about it at this moment is that at that particular time it was somewhat difficult to get governments to acknowledge two things which are pretty generally acknowledged today.
One of the undertakings given previously was to the effect that anyone who collected taxes ought to be spending the money, and it was felt that that was a greater safeguard than anything else in connection with the keeping down of taxes and the keeping down of costs. But there is no one in this house that I know of at the present time who contends that is the policy which should be followed. It certainly is not the policy which is being followed, and the opposite policy has been followed for some considerable time. Therefore I think I am justified in saying today that in so far as the parliament of Canada is concerned, and so far as those sitting on both sides of the house are concerned, there has been fairly general recognition of the fact that large sums of money should be spent for national purposes ini different parts of Canada.
There is one other project to which I want to refer at the moment because this discussion concerns not only those in the west but everybody in Canada. One of the chief interests that members from the maritime provinces had when I came to this house was in having the dikes reconditioned in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These dikes were built in the days when the country was occupied either by the French or by the British many years ago. The cost of construction was not charged against the lands at the time they were constructed. Most of the construction was carried out with moneys supplied by France or moneys supplied by Great Britain under differing circumstances, and the dikes were there.
But when the dikes started to disappear some hundred years or more later we were proceeding according to the policy that I spoke of a few moments ago. The provinces, because of the set-up of our constitution at the time of confederation, were made responsible for all such expenditures as those having to do with dikes. All I am going to say about it is that in 1935 we started in to establish a policy under which assistance would be given by Ottawa for the construction of dikes in the maritime provinces, and it was thirteen years before we were able to get an item into the estimates to provide for that kind of expenditure in those provinces. I am not being critical now of some other political party when I say that. We were in power during all that time. As

South Saskatchewan River Project Minister of Agriculture I brought recommendations forward from year to year. I discussed the matter fully. I went down and looked at the projects. I came back and told all that I knew about them. I think I even had the support of my friend, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), who supported the project on every occasion when it was being discussed. So far as I know, all other private members of the house from that area were in favour of it. So that finally, after some ten or twelve years of continuous talk with regard to their necessity, ignoring the fact that the building of these dikes would not result in anybody getting enough money to pay for them, the federal government are paying for the dikes. They are being built at the cost of the treasury of this country. In so far as anything being paid by the provinces or by the farmers who live behind the dikes is concerned it is only the activities going on behind the dikes that are being paid for by those people.
Construction of dikes in the maritime provinces was only brought into being because of the experience that we had with P.F.R.A. in western Canada. We were the people who came forward every year and said:	This is what we are doing out west.
We have already established the fact that some of these larger national projects have to be financed through Ottawa and assisted through Ottawa. Having done that, we would like to do the same thing in connection with the dikes and projects in the maritime provinces.
All I would like to say to members who come from the maritime provinces, with regard to this matter, is that if they do not agree with me regarding what has happened in the maritimes they should, if they have not already done so, go down to Amherst. They should drive east, I think it is-although I am not just too sure in which direction I am driving when I go along the coast line-and they will find that there is a very large diking project that has been undertaken by the government of Canada. Those who live there have carried on the activities behind the ditches and the dikes that have been provided. In order to get some idea of what good has been done, all I want to say is that one should look at the half which has been dealt with and then look at the half which has not yet been dealt with. The two lie side by side. On one side the lands are rehabilitated and in condition where farmers can use them for the production of hay. Right alongside are lands that are still flooded with salt water and will be of no use to anyone until they

are diked. I would suggest that if members cannot go out and take a look at Saskatchewan and Alberta they should take a look at that project. I wish to say to them that it is exactly the same kind of thing which is being done in connection with rehabilitation in the west; and the government of Canada has been making payments in relation thereto.
I am quite aware of the fact that you can turn up Hansard of 1937 and find that almost everything I am saying now was said then. But as a result of representations made about 1937, and upon the basis of statements then made to the house and decisions made by the government of that day-and carried out-the policy of federal support has resulted. One of the policies followed was that of giving relief to people. It cost us $186 million in relief to people who had been settled on those lands but could not make a living in the thirties. One hundred and eighty-six million was paid out of the treasury of Canada during the first three or four years of the existence of this government in the late thirties. That money was spent in order to make it possible for people to live there until such time as more rehabilitation projects could be carried out. As I stated a moment ago instead of holding rehabilitation to four years or five years there was no limit put on the time and we have been spending on an average between $2 and $3 million a year ever since. We have now spent something over $39 million not on relief but on P.F.R.A.
Now I wish to say a word about what P.F.R.A. is. P.F.R.A. is not associated with the building of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river, nor is it associated with the building of the St. Mary dam. It is not associated with the Bow river project and it is not associated with the Red Deer project. Those are projects that have been associated with what we call the larger storage and irrigation projects in the western part of Canada. We have spent on P.F.R.A. as such about $34 million, as against $4|- million that had been authorized by the initial act prior to the election of 1935 and determined upon as to the extent to which the policy should go.
Well, on these larger projects we have now spent some $22 million, making a total of over $60 million which has been spent for rehabilitation purposes. The last $24 million of that has not been spent as prairie farm rehabilitation expenditure but on what we call the larger projects.
I am sure that you would want me to give some explanation of what I mean by that. We set up the P.F.R.A. scheme and without

going into details in connection with the report, I wish to say every single thing referred to in the report as something that ought to be done in western Canada has already been explored-100 per cent-and in most cases the suggestions are being carried out. One of the very definite proposals made, that of pumping water out of the South Saskatchewan river and up onto the land, has been turned down by every authority who has looked at it. The reason is that the waters of the South Saskatchewan river are full of silt and there is no way of pumping that water up on top unless you build a dam, allow the silt to settle to the bottom, and pump the waters off afterwards. You would have to build a dam at every point where you wanted any great pumping scheme carried out, and such a project is not practical. Everyone who has had a look at it has said that it is not a practical thing to do.
I looked at schemes in western Canada during the early days and I was carried away for the time being as a result of watching the pumping of water out of the South Saskatchewan river, pumping it up a couple of hundred feet and pouring it on the land. I had never seen any such production from lands in western Canada until then. However, I go back today and look at those same projects and find that the individuals who put pumps in then are not pumping water any more. The reason is that they have found out exactly what our engineers have found out-that it is not a practical thing to do.
So, I say to you again, everything which it is suggested in this report should be done by the P.F.R.A. or by the government of Canada has already been undertaken, completed or fully investigated and action taken accordingly, and I am going to leave my comment on the recommendations of the report at that point.
There is something to be said about these large projects. In the first instance we were determined not to follow the ideas which were followed in the United States until we had carried on the greater part of our planning for P.F.R.A. work, and then, when we had done that, we had determined that we should provide for a number of large storage projects that could be utilized by the provinces after we had ceased to be interested in prairie farm rehabilitation. They could be utilized by the provinces in order to continue to make it possible for people to live to advantage in that particular section of the country. In other words, the work of moving people off submarginal lands, the establishment of community pastures, the putting 68108-111
South Saskatchewan River Project in of small irrigation projects, all of that work goes on under P.F.R.A. and it is going on. Every single part of what is known as the Palliser triangle, including the hard core of necessary relief, has been dealt with under P.F.R.A. and is being dealt with under P.F.R.A. Everyone who has been associated with this agrees that the most helpful plans that have been carried out are those connected with the projects set up under P.F.R.A.
Coming to the larger projects, we were told, and it has proven to be correct, that if we did not start to utilize the waters out of the St. Mary river, the Waterton river and others that come into this country from the United States, those waters would be utilized on the other side of the line and we would be without them.
The government of the province of Alberta of that day took the position that they could not afford to deal with that situation themselves. I do not know whether or not they would take that position today, with their oil supplies, but I am rather inclined to think that they would; because I do not know that that circumstance has made a great deal of difference. By far the greater part of the wealth they obtain, they get from the soil just as does any other western province. But nevertheless at that time they took the position that they could not go ahead.
They had an experience-and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) knows it better than anyone else because I think he was the minister handling the funds at the time-of having to pay off guaranteed amounts put up in connection with irrigation in the province of Alberta. They therefore came to us and suggested that we ought to do something about it. We were not in a position to deal with the matter then any more than we are at this moment in a position to deal with the South Saskatchewan river dam. Having no set-uip here which made it possible for me to go to Alberta and make a deal with the Alberta government based upon policy here, we sent letters to the Alberta government and received letters back from them, under which they agreed that whatever the policy was that was decided on at a later date in connection with those projects-and we always said there would not be more than four of them-they would go ahead and spend money on the part of the project which we had been discussing, on the understanding that whatever the decision was it would be finally applied to any of the undertakings. So we went ahead with the St. Mary river dam. But in so far as the other three pro-
1740	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project jeets were concerned-the Bow river, the Red Deer and the South Saskatchewan- there was no definite decision. It is in the order in council. I am not going to read it this afternoon because it would take considerable time to do it; the information can be obtained from the order in council. That order in council-I think it is P.C. 2298, passed in 1947'-provides that we must have an agreement with the province in connection with these larger projects, and that under that agreement we are presumed to be following the same policy as is laid down by the Meek commission which reported in 1942 in relation to the St. Mary dam. So when we came to deal with the Bow river project we dealt with it on that basis, although we did some things there that we are not doing in others. We bought the land, for example. But as regards the water supply being provided to the province and to others, the arrangements are similar to those made elsewhere in accordance with the terms of the Meek report.
Then we went up to Edmonton to deal with the Red Deer project. What I want to tell the members from the province of Alberta- and they can get the details from their own government if they desire to do so

is that I went to Alberta and I sat down with the whole government of Alberta and discussed these projects. At the time we discussed them and it was agreed that the first project we would attempt to go ahead with and finish was the St. Mary river dam. Then it was agreed that the second one we would proceed with and complete, if we could persuade the government to undertake it, was the Bow river project; and both of these we are proceeding with. Then it was agreed too that until we have been able to make a more complete examination of the possibilities on the South Saskatchewan river, we would not be proceeding with the Red Deer project. I must admit-and I think the members of the Alberta government would also admit it -that I did not anticipate that we would be quite as long as we are in making the decision. They did not anticipate that we would. I think I can make an appeal to my friend the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) based upon something which I have heard him say in this house previously, namely, that at no time when these discussions were on did we use them in a political sense. He recalled in this house that I was at the convention in Hanna and I may say that I am asked to go back to it this year and I may be there again.


An hon. Member:: You know what happened.


James Garfield Gardiner: In any event, I was at the
convention in Hanna. In answer to a question,


I stated that the question as to whether we were prepared to proceed with the Red Deer project was not an issue in connection with the election, that whether they elected one member or another was not a matter which could decide that question, and that it would not be considered from that point of view. My hon. friend nods his head and will agree that is correct.
That is the position which I took from time to time right across western Canada, namely, that these are projects that have to be built for the purpose of rehabilitating that area and putting it back into a position where the people can live there; that I anticipated that no matter what government is in power in Canada from now on, any government that is established in Ottawa would undertake to carry on projects of that kind down to the time when we had performed our duty as a federal government to take care of the responsibilities we had assumed, through the activities of previous governments in not having those areas settled in the manner in which, they now agree, as does everybody, they should have been settled.
May I recall to your minds again that we have spent approximately $40 million on P.F.R.A. We have spent-the greater part of it coming out of the treasury of Canada but some of it from the farmers in western Canada-$141 million on prairie farm assistance. We have spent the amount, which I referred to a few moments ago, of $22 million on those larger projects. We are committed to complete the St. Mary dam; we are committed to complete the Bow river project. We are under obligation to discuss with the government of Alberta as to whether we are prepared to go ahead with the Red Deer project, and we are under obligation to discuss with the government of Saskatchewan whether we are prepared to go ahead with the Saskatchewan river project. But neither one of those governments has any undertaking, either from myself or from the government of Canada, that we are going to go ahead with those projects. We have been discussing the matter from the same point of view as we have always discussed it in connection with the other two projects that are now under way.
What I want to say with regard to the matter is that I greatly regret that the minister of agriculture of Alberta made the statement which he is reported to have made. I have some doubts as to whether he meant what the newspaper says he said. I hope he does not. After all, the question whether you are going to build a dam on the South Saskatchewan river i6 not a question which

concerns the province of Alberta beyond the fact as to whether there is sufficient water that ought to be allowed to cross the boundary line into Saskatchewan, into the South Saskatchewan river, for that purpose. Even then, it is not their task to decide whether or not there is enough water. It is their task to admit or to determine otherwise, through the water board, as to whether a certain amount of water is going to pass into Saskatchewan; but when one does determine that that amount of water ought to be allowed to pass into Saskatchewan, to my mind it is then a question which ought to be determined and be decided upon by the Saskatchewan government as to what use is going to be made of it; that is, in so far as Alberta is concerned. The province of Manitoba still has a right to come in and to say: You are using too much of the water for some particular purpose before you allow some of it to come on to us. But I do not think that Alberta, once having agreed that this amount of water does go into Saskatchewan, should take an interest in whether Saskatchewan uses it in the dam or whether they use it in some other way. Therefore, I repeat, I would hope that the statement which is attributed to the minister of agriculture of Alberta is not just exactly what the press says it is.
Then I want to say another word with regard to the commission itself. You asked me whether the P.F.R.A. engineers did not make recommendations. You asked me: What recommendations did you make? If you read the order in council of 1947 you will find that there is only one recommendation I could make, and that recommendation was that in my opinion we might declare that the South Saskatchewan river project is one which might be determined as feasible under the order in council of 1947, and therefore I might be asked to discuss it with the provincial government of Saskatchewan, with a definite understanding that I could give no undertaking to complete it until I had reported back to council in Ottawa. That is the basis on which they have all been done.
Some hon. members seem to have doubts as to who is supporting this project and who is opposing it. Well, I am going to tell you this: I do not know any more about who is supporting and who is opposing the project in the government of Canada than you do, and I am going to tell you why. It has never yet been discussed before the government of Canada, and I have good reasons for keeping it in the position where it has not yet been discussed. And the good reasons are similar to those that held up the dikes proposition for thirteen years before it was finally agreed 68108-1114
South Saskatchewan River Project to, but I would hope that this one is not going to be thirteen years. Nevertheless, I want to know that I am right, and I want them to know that I am right before I definitely go to them and insist upon this thing being done. Therefore I come back to the point that the building of the dam never was discussed in council before the 30th day of May or since.
On the 30th day of May I brought in a recommendation to the council to the effect that this matter might be submitted to the Saskatchewan government, and I was asked the question as to whether I had any objections to a commission being appointed, and I said no. So they said: "All right, then we will discuss it after the commission has been appointed and reports", and I said: "All right".
Now, on the question as to the kind of commission that we had, I must say again that I personally recommended every one that is on the commission, including the secretary. The personnel is not the group that I recommended first. Nobody else asked me to recommend any of them. The first three that I recommended consisted of two Americans and one Canadian. The one Canadian was Dr. Hogg. One of the Americans accepted; the other one did not find it possible to accept, for which I am very sorry. Since he could not accept we offered it to three other Americans, one after another, and that accounts entirely for the delay in getting the commission set up. One after another gave consideration to it for two or three weeks, or a month, and then they decided, no, they could not give the time to it. They all wanted to do the job; they would all have liked to do the job; but they finally had to say that their activities down in the United States made it impossible for them to come up here and spend the length of time necessary. When we got to that point I recommended Mr. Gaherty to the government and he was added to the other two, and Dr. Hogg was made chairman.
There has been some criticism of the personnel. I want to suggest this to you. Only one thing was being considered by the government. We had considered all the other things that this commission talks about, and we passed in favour of most of them and we are doing most of them. There was only one thing that we were really concerned about when we submitted this matter to the commission, namely, the Saskatchewan river dam and the reservoir that was going to be behind it. I recall to the minds of hon. members, who have been a little critical, my own statement in connection with the matter, and remind them of the fact that it is not so very
1742	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project long ago that they were twitting me with having said that if the dam went out it would take the city of Saskatoon along with it. They said I was trying to scare people. I was not trying to scare people. We had the experience last summer of a dam almost going out above Swift Current, and I had delegations down here wanting the government to pay for the houses that had been flooded, to pay for everything that happened in connection with it. Fortunately we were able to keep the dam in, but it could have gone out, and if it had gone out a very considerable part of Swift Current would have gone along with it. Therefore, I repeat, we are concerned about whether or not we can keep the dam there.
Having said that, I think you realize that I would have certainly been open to a great deal of criticism if I had appointed George Spence as chairman of this commission last year. I knew what George Spence would want to say without putting him on a commission. I know that he is the best P.F.R.A. official that we have had in western Canada.
I know that he is a member of the international joint commission. I know what his views are on the question. I do not need to ask it. As a matter of fact, he was the chairman of the board at the time that I was convinced you could build a dam on the South Saskatchewan river and therefore I have no reason to ask him. I knew too that he would make one of the best representations to the commission when it sat that would be made by anyone. I know George Spence well enough to know that he would do that, and he did it without being asked by me. Then I knew that if it was not satisfactory to him at the end he would make the best criticism of it that anyone has made, and he has done that and it is published in the press. If anyone wants to get the views of George Spence they can get them very easily by reading them. I know what his views are. But if I had appointed or recommended to the government that they appoint one or two men like George Spence on the commission, the commission would not have served the purpose which I had in my mind, nor would it have served the purpose that the government had in their minds. I was satisfied myself that a dam could be built there, but I have gone down underground since that time. I have walked through the tunnels that have been there. I have done that along with engineers and I have been told that the dam can be made to stay there. I have been told by three of the best consultants on the North American continent that the dam can be made to stay there, and after reading this report I am quite convinced that if at least two of the members of the commission had 

reported as they would like to have reported, they would have said that you could not build a dam there at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Who were the three?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Casagrande of Harvard, Mr. Harza, I think his name is, of Chicago, and General Ferguson, who has been a consultant in connection with it right along.


Mr. Drew:: May I ask the minister what he means by "if they had been free to report as they would have wished to"?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not say "if they had been free to report as they wished to", but if they had reported as they probably thought when they were put on the commission they would have probably said no, it is pretty difficult to put it there. I am saying that because when they were appointed, as I said a moment ago, I was very careful in recommending it to the government not to recommend somebody who had preconceived ideas. As a matter of fact, when we were discussing the last man who went on the commission I made an inquiry of the government myself as to whether they were satisfied that the man did not have preconceived ideas with regard to it.
The reason I am pleased with the report of the commission is this: that feeling that having selected people who would have some reasons at least, or some inclination, to find in the opposite direction, they were unable to say after they investigated the whole project that it cannot be built there.
Now, I was reading from a good editorial -I almost feel like reading it to the house- in the Albertan, which was quite critical of this whole project prior to the time the commission was set up, and which has now written an editorial which I think is quite characteristic of the editorials that have been written in western Canada. I think I ought to read part, if not all, of it. They say this:
Right after the war the federal government started talking about a large irrigation project on the South Saskatchewan river somewhere in Saskatchewan. The government's efficient prairie farm rehabilitation administration staff went to work on the idea, found a suitable site, drew plans and pursued all the other preliminary tasks. The provincial government agreed to assume a good deal of the cost. As this had long been a favourite policy of Mr. Gardiner, what was there to stand in the way?
Then they go on to say this:
Then something over a year ago Ottawa decided to have a royal commission look into the advisability of the project. This seemed to many people to be just a stall, but, as the Albertan said then, if there is any doubt about the economic feasibility of the project, it's better to find out now than after the thing is built.

The commission, consisting of three competent engineers, made an exhaustive survey and about three months ago completed its report. But well before it was written, one commission member-
I do not know which one this was, but it gives me reason for what I said a moment ago.
-dropped the hint that the report would advise against the project. Shortly after the report was signed, the word leaked out that that was so. Thus, before the official disclosure of the contents, there has been a general controversy on the findings of the commission. Mr. Gardiner, the P.F.R.A. and many other people have been quite critical. Saskatchewan is quite disillusioned. And now, in the midst of this debate, the report is released. For the first time the public knows exactly what is in it.
As for us. we find it a mixture of good and bad.
Among the points that needed saying by someone with the authority of this commission, and which cannot be disputed or minimized, are these:
I am not going to read them all. Perhaps I should read the first one, just to indicate what it is about:
1.	Markets are a first consideration. Irrigation means very specialized farming, and that means new crops and new crops mean new markets.
All I will say about that is that it will be ten years before the dam is completed, and it will be at least five years after that before enough land is irrigated to make much difference. Fifteen years is a long time to be preparing markets. No one can say at this time what the market will be. But I would not put as much emphasis upon markets as they are putting upon them at the moment. Nevertheless the report did put some emphasis upon the matter, and they make reference to it.
Then the editorial goes on:
2.	There ought to be an over-all approach to the question of river development in the three prairie provinces. This is not something for haphazard growth. The various legal and engineering problems ought to be worked out now, with Ottawa taking the lead although the provinces are in actual control of the rivers. Diversion of the North Saskatchewan to the South Saskatchewan, and the Athabasca and Churchill to the North Saskatchewan, are matters which, if investigated now, might put a different light on the whole matter.
All I wish to say is that P.F.R.A., or myself, through Justice, have entered into all the questions which are referred to here; and we are quite satisfied in view of the fact that these are matters which are the responsibility of the provinces, and not the responsibility of the federal government-ever since the natural resources were returned to the provinces, and since we are simply engaged in the task of handing the provinces something which we think they are entitled to, because we did not make as good a job of settling the lands as we should have made while they were under our administration.
South Saskatchewan River Project
We say that we are prepared to give them something. One of the things we have already given Alberta is the St. Mary dam. One we are in process of giving them is the Bow river project. One we are considering whether or not we will give them is the Red Deer project. One we are considering in Saskatchewan, as to whether or not we will pay for it, is the South Saskatchewan river project.
Now, all you need to do is to take the correspondence at the tail end of the report and read it. If you do you will find that this question has been under discussion ever since these larger projects were first considered. The provinces themselves, under Mr. Bracken's leadership, set up a water board. That water board was going to determine what was going to happen in the different provinces, irrespective of what the federal government did. Two years later it was converted into a board on which the federal government had representation, the chief reason being that the federal government indicated that we were not going to get into any controversy with the provinces of western Canada as to what should be done with water in Alberta in order to transfer it into Saskatchewan. We were not going to get into any difficulty, so we joined in setting up the board, and that board is there. They have the power, the authority and the information upon which to base decision on all these questions raised here.
Then the editorial continues:
3.	Irrigation ought to go ahead, in different ways if not in this way.
That is their opinion, I know, but I think everyone here agrees with them.
Of great interest to Alberta is the apparent approval given to the Red Deer diversion scheme which would irrigate half a million acres in east-central Alberta and which, the commission suggests, might be taken well into Saskatchewan.
We have never raised any objection to taking water into Saskatchewan out of Alberta. We have never suggested whether it should be or should not be done because, after all, it is a matter to be determined between the provinces. We have said that if Alberta wants to provide water in the Sullivan dam, or somewhere else, that can be utilized across the line in Saskatchewan, that province should make an agreement with the Alberta government-and it should be done without controversy at all. We are not going to step into the picture at all and tell either of them that they should or should not do certain things.
That is something which we say should be determined as between the provinces, before we are brought into the picture at all. And so we have suggested that they ought to take
1744	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project those matters to the water board and have them settled. After they are settled, we will be in a position to go and talk to them about the other features of the South Saskatchewan. Then they go on to say this:
And among the points with which we take issue are the following:
That is, they are referring to the points raised in the commission's report. Then the other points are included. It goes on to say that, among others, the first of these is the estimated cost. I am not going to go into that matter at all. I think it would be better to do so at some other time. However, they do deal with the matter and give reasons for believing why the cost should not be anything like the amount mentioned.
Then they make reference to the size of farming units, and show a statement in that connection-that they do not carry out the experience that has been had at the St. Mary dam or the Bow river dam, and I am inclined to agree with them on that.
Then they go on to refer to the rights of the other provinces, and say:
The commission seems unduly concerned about objections of Alberta and Manitoba, for, after all, it says, the river belongs to them too. But Alberta before long will be watering close to a million acres from the tributaries of the South Saskatchewan, and Manitoba's fears of losing water power potential are hardly well grounded, with so many other sites available and new water diversion from other watersheds distinctly possible.
Then they just ask this question: What about Saskatchewan's rights? I say again that that is a very fair editorial coming from the province of Alberta. The only objections that have come to this proposal have come from Alberta. I have read the report most carefully and I cannot find that a single individual who appeared before that commission, excepting one engineer from Alberta, raised objection. I think those who base their decisions on that objection ought to go back and look up the records. I am not going to recite them to you today because they are all on record. I have no doubt that some of my friends from Alberta know what the record is.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has told us of the difficulties in Alberta and a while ago they made the statement, "We are not in position now to go ahead with the South Saskatchewan river dam." He did not use the word "project". Is it because of the attitude of Alberta that the minister made that statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, if I made that statement- Mr. Diefenbaker: Those are the exact words. Mr. Gardiner: I can imagine that a great deal was said before and after it if I said 

that. In any case, if I did, it simply meant that we have not yet made our decision on the question. We have not yet discussed it with the province of Saskatchewan since the report is out, and until it is discussed we are not in position to proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: Or with the cabinet?


James Garfield Gardiner: Or with the cabinet. It has not been discussed at either place. I want it distinctly understood that there is not any trouble between myself and any other member of the government. There has never been any trouble about who was going to be on the commission. The government accepted the commission which I recommended. My chief reason for recommending someone that I was not definitely sure was going to say that you could build a dam was that we should be certain before undertaking the construction that the dam would not go out and take Saskatoon with it. When I found a commission, of the kind which was appointed, not in position to say that there was any danger in building the dam, in so far as my own feelings in the matter are concerned I think I was strengthened. My own views are strengthened by the report of the commission rather than otherwise.


John George Diefenbaker: You whispered it to other members of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I not only whispered it, I said it out loud. This is a matter we are trying to reach a reasonable decision about in the hope that if it is done we will be doing something which is in the interests, not only of the area itself but of all Canada, and that the money, if expended, is going to be well expended on a project of that kind.


George Alexander Drew: Just with the idea of clarifying the statement the minister has made, I would ask the minister to clarify what he said about this never having been discussed in the cabinet. Was it not discussed in the cabinet before the commission was appointed to make an inquiry into this matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the question of whether we were going to do it. As a matter of fact, the only time that this project as such was discussed was on each occasion when we voted money to investigate it. That has been done every year since 1949-50. There have been definite votes. There was a vote of $7,500,000 the first year and $7,890,000 the last year for large projects. Part of that money was set aside for expenditure on the South Saskatchewan. There is still money in the estimates this year for that purpose. Every year that that was brought up I discussed my estimates with the treasury board and with

council and I always submitted an argument in favour of going ahead and making this investigation. Every year the government agreed that the money should be spent in that way and it has been spent in that way.
Coming down to May 31, 1951, I think it was-this	is indicated in Hansard-I
announced the government's position in relation to it, that they were going to appoint a commission. I repeat now that when I brought the recommendation in, that the matter be discussed with the Saskatchewan government, the Prime Minister said to me-
I hope you will not consider this a matter as revealing something that happened in council-


George Alexander Drew: You mean the Prime Minister of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: He just said to me, "Have you any objection to the matter being referred to a commissioner or commissioners?" That suggestion was made in the light of some of the reports that had been made to us, and some other things. I was asked if I had any objection to there being a commission, and I said, "No, I have not". That was the discussion. I came into the house that evening and I reported-this is on the record-and two or three days later I recommended a commission. That commission was accepted by the government. They saw the individuals; two of them accepted and one could not. We went on and finally got the commission set up, and the commission reported.
The commission reported, as you know, on January 12. From that time to this there have been no discussions of it. We have not had an opportunity of discussing it and it has not been discussed up to now. That is the present position.


Mr. Wright:: Do I understand the minister to say that he never at any time made a recommendation to the cabinet that the South Saskatchewan river project should be given consideration by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that I had never recommended it be given consideration. I said I had never yet been in position to recommend that it be proceeded with. The reason for that is an order in council, I think it is 2298 of 1947, which definitely states the procedure that must be followed in the case of every large project. Large projects are not built by P.F.R.A., they are carried out as individual jobs or projects. When it comes to the matter of building a dam in Saskatchewan, that is an individual project that will have to be brought up under that order in council.
South Saskatchewan River Project
Under that order in council I came to the government on May 30, 1951, and stated that I thought the matter was in a position where it could be discussed with the Saskatchewan government and I recommended that it be discussed. When it reached that stage they appointed a commission, and it is in that stage yet. The recommendation now would be, not that we proceed with the dam immediately but that we proceed with the discussion with the Saskatchewan government. That would be the proper procedure and it is the one that would be followed if the decision was arrived at to proceed with further discussion.
The Saskatchewan government is now in a position where they know everything that has been represented to us. We know everything that has been represented to them. When the government has given consideration to it, it will be with all those facts before them. If I am directed to go to Regina and discuss the matter with the Saskatchewan government it will be with all those facts before us.


Percy Ellis Wright: In other words, you have never yet discussed it with the Saskatchewan government?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not since 1951, which I think was the last discussion we had with them. In 1950 we discussed it with them and they were not too sure at that time just what they wanted to do. But a few months later they were fairly sure that they wanted to proceed; in fact I think they have been sure that they wanted to proceed since that time, after having had a discussion with us.
That is the position in relation to it. I thought it better that hon. members should know the position as we see it. I will just summarize what I have been saying in this way. The South Saskatchewan river project, so far as we are concerned, is the dam.


George Alexander Drew: What does the minister mean by "we"?


James Garfield Gardiner: I mean the government. We have never considered anything else, doing anything else but building the dam and putting in the reservoir.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the government because you have not spoken to the cabinet about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: From the beginning when we started to talk about the project as such. I would not just come out and say today, "I am going to recommend this." We have been working on this for ten years. All I am saying is that we have had money voted by the government to work on it. At the end

South Saskatchewan River Project of that ten years I am in a position to say that I think this project is on all fours with the St. Mary and Bow river projects with only one difference, namely, that it will cost considerably more money than the other two. I think we ought to discuss it with the Saskatchewan government. It has got to that stage.


Percy Ellis Wright: How did these items get in the estimates without being discussed by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are many items put in the estimates without a decision being made that the job is going to be done this year.


An hon. Member:: Window-dressing.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to recall to my hon. friend's mind that I believe there was an item put in the estimates to build a post office in one of the Saskatchewan constituencies away back in the time of Mr. Bennett, and I think it was built last year. The fact that these items go into the estimates should not suggest that you are going to do it next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that the South Saskatchewan project, as far as we are concerned-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question in connection with the estimates? Is the item that is provided in the estimates this year for the construction of the dam or merely for preliminary work as in the past?


James Garfield Gardiner: I must say this because I will probably be saying it when I come to the estimates and I had better say it now. Sometimes mistakes are made in even putting items in the estimates, and in so far as this particular matter is concerned $500,000 is just as good as $1 million; but when that estimate was placed before treasury board-my hon. friend smiles at that. The fact is that there is an estimate there while the amendment says that there is not.


John George Diefenbaker: It says for construction of the dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the amount of $1 million is concerned, which is the amount that is supposed to be there-and it can be adjusted to put it there-


John George Diefenbaker: For construction.


James Garfield Gardiner: -if we once decide to construct the dam I doubt very much if you can spend any more than $1 million on construction in the first year.


Mr. Argue:: Is that what the $1 million is there for, construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: If we once decide to do it, it is.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not what it says.


James Garfield Gardiner: It could be utilized for that purpose. In the second place, the dam would be the final act of rehabilitation in Saskatchewan. We started out to rehabilitate the areas that had not been properly settled. We said we would spend a considerable amount of money on it. By the time we get through with this we will have spent from $7.50 to $10 an acre on every acre of land utilized for this purpose, and that is quite a bit of money. What we have suggested is that all activities and expenditures will at some time or other revert to the province. Our position will be that we have rehabilitated the area and have put it in the same position in relation to Ottawa as every other province, and therefore it is the province's job to go ahead and continue from there.
The only four projects in western Canada that have been proposed on that basis are the four I have mentioned. The only other one which is even similar is the one involving the Assiniboine river in the province of Manitoba where we have been making surveys near the boundary line between the two provinces. When rehabilitation is fully planned and finally under way, an act generally applicable to all provinces based upon benefits to agriculture should replace the present P.F.R.A. legislation. I think we have discussed the possibilities of that every year now for the last three years, and I would say again that, in view of the change in attitude toward expenditures, provincially and federally, there will be good reason when we draw toward the end of real rehabilitation work to have an act based upon our experience in that area which can be applied in different parts of Canada to take care of soil surveys and other activities in connection with the improvement of farm lands across Canada.
We feel that if there are differences among the three western provinces with respect to the utilization of the water in the Saskatchewan river basin they should meet under the waters board and remove these objections, whatever they are, before we discuss the matter with them or we will not be able to arrive at very definite conclusions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Can he say whom he refers to in his use of "we" in this prepared part of his statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has already answered that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am referring to myself and other members of the government-the government of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister mean the members of the government with whom he has not discussed the matter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I know them as well as my hon. friend does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister says he has not discussed the question with them at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a pretty good idea what they think about most of the matters I am talking about in spite of the fact we have not discussed them.


Hazen Robert Argue: A one-man cabinet.


James Garfield Gardiner: My recommendation has been and my recommendation still is that these two projects, the Red Deer and the South Saskatchewan, be discussed to a final conclusion and that that conclusion be taken up with the two provinces and finally determined upon. That is our intention, and I am not in a position to go any further than that at the moment. I would suggest that I do not see any good point in continuing the amendment to the motion to go into supply in view of the fact that it does not indicate the facts as they are and in view of the fact that I think all members from western Canada will be pretty well agreed on what should be done about the South Saskatchewan river dam. I am not so sure that all members from all parts of Canada would not be agreed. Why put members in the position of having to vote against the amendment just because it contains statements that are not correct or just because, if it should be passed, it would be interpreted by some people at least as a vote of want of confidence in the government? Why should they insist on that? The objective of all of us is to try to set up conditions under which this project will be carried through, and I think the sooner we get down to the estimates and get talking about something when we have decisions made the better it will be for all of us. I would therefore suggest that we drop this discussion and go on to something else. I hope my friends will agree with that for the moment, and then we can finish this discussion at the proper time when we have all the information before us.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister's very interesting hour and a half speech on the South Saskatchewan dam project I B8108-112
South Saskatchewan River Project am afraid I am no more convinced now than I was before he started that the people of Saskatchewan are receiving a fair deal with respect to the project. In fact, I am becoming more and more convinced that they are not.


Mr. Dechene:: Who cares what you think?


George Harris Hees: This afternoon the minister discussed practically everything else except the reason why the government has not proceeded long ago with the project which he has been promising the people of Saskatchewan for a long time. This afternoon the minister said that he had not been promising this dam. I should like to read a quotation from the Regina Leader-Post dealing with a speech that the minister made at a luncheon gathering of the Regina board of trade on April 27, 1946. The report reads as follows:
The dominion government had already mapped out a program, and it was a program involving $110 million. This would be used largely in providing for the storage of water and partly for the distribution of this water where needed. The dominion government thus did not need the endorsation of the South Saskatchewan river development association to begin work on the South Saskatchewan river. It had already decided to go through with it.
The article reports the minister as going on to say:
-a decision would be reached on where the dam on the South Saskatchewan should be placed. It would be on one of three sites between the Elbow and Saskatoon. As soon as the site had been finally decided upon contracts would be let, and work would proceed immediately.
That is seven years ago. Well, listening to the minister's speech this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded very much of the speeches we have become used to from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) because we took a cross-country tour and we arrived absolutely nowhere.
We learned only two things: first of all that the matter has never been discussed in the cabinet, and the probability is that it will not be discussed for an indefinite period of time; and the second, a most interesting thing, and these are the minister's own words because I jotted them down as he spoke, "the commissioners were not free to report as they would have desired". That I think is a very interesting thing to have learned.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of their own choice.


George Harris Hees: Well, I jotted that down.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was an explanation given. I do not think my hon. friend wants to be fair. I was asked about it at the time I made the statement. I explained what I meant and I think that is what should be stated now.

South Saskatchewan River Project


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has convinced me that the commissioners were not reporting as, in all probability, they would have liked to report. That is the impression that has been left with me.
Now, the minister told us that the cabinet would like to reach a reasonable decision upon this matter, but I want to ask him how in the world we are ever going to get anybody to reach a reasonable decision on anything if they refuse to discuss it. He told us that this thing is probably not going to be discussed for an indefinite period of time. I would like to know how this thing is ever going to be approved unless the cabinet is going to come to grips with it. From what I can see, they just want to promise it for the next election and then put it off, promise it again and put it off-just to keep the old evergreen tree in the forest ever growing.


An hon. Member:: They are going to be here a long time.


George Harris Hees: If these promises are not going to be kept you will not be here after the next election.


An hon. Member:: You said so yourself.


George Harris Hees: I said you people could promise them-and you can promise them just as well in opposition. You do not have to be in government to promise them. You can do that in opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: We will give them four more weeks. Now, Mr. Speaker, after studying this South Saskatchewan project report, I have been left with the very definite impression that the commissioners must have received a directive from this government to bring in a report proving that this dam should not be built. I come to that conclusion because practically no attention has been paid to the great number of benefits that would derive from this project, and all attention seems to have been concentrated on the few drawbacks. So, I am left with that impression, and it is a very disturbing impression to receive when there had been expected a free commission with tremendous experience which could have been expected to bring in a report that one could really rely upon.
Another thing the minister said this afternoon was that the people in Alberta had no concern whether this project was built or not. That is a statement I wish to disagree with very heartily and I want to say that this project is not only of importance to the people of Saskatchewan but it is of prime importance to all of the people of this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I just say, as a matter of keeping the record straight, that what I said about Alberta I read from an editorial published by the Calgary Albertan in the city of Calgary. I do not think even that meant just exactly what my friend has indicated.


George Harris Hees: I was not trying to misinterpret the minister's words but I understood the minister to say that he agreed with the editorial, that is all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did, but the editorial does not say that.


George Harris Hees: As a resident of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, I have learned that the prosperity of Ontario depends very largely on the prosperity of all other parts of the country. We, in central Canada, have learned that we cannot be prosperous unless the west and the maritimes are prosperous as well. So, I feel that statement about other provinces not being interested in this project is a completely erroneous one.


James Garfield Gardiner: Who made that statement?


George Harris Hees: It was a statement made in the paper and I understand and still believe that the minister agrees with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must take the minister's word for what his statement was. The minister stood up a minute ago and explained what he did not agree with and told what he agreed with 

and so the hon. member must accept the minister's word for it.


George Harris Hees: I did not understand the minister to say he disagreed. I thought he said they were not his words but that he was reading from an editorial.
In addition to providing much-needed irrigation for the farm lands of Saskatchewan, one of the things that appeal to me, as someone coming from central Canada, is the fact that this project would provide very important sources of hydroelectric power for the people of Saskatchewan, and would make it possible to bring industries to that province to make their economy less dependent on agriculture.
I believe that if we are going to build a stable economy in this country, we must make it possible for industries to move to the prairie provinces and to the maritimes. That cannot be done unless provision is made for hydroelectric power. That is the first step, and I believe that this project is an ideal example of just how that can be done.
I believe that this is the kind of project that can only be undertaken by government, because of its size. I believe that this is the

kind of project that government should undertake, and it is for that reason I strongly urge this government to go ahead with the project.
I believe that they will be doing a great service, not only to the people of Saskatchewan, but to all of the people of this country. I believe that it will be a very forward step in making possible diversification of industry right across this nation. That is a most necessary step if we are to arrive at a really stable economy.
I was out in Saskatchewan a year ago and I talked to a great many people who would be affected by this project. I was first of all very much impressed by the stories they told me of conditions that existed in the area during the thirties. I was amazed that conditions could be so bad and last for so long. I was also very much impressed by the fervent hope that had been engendered in these people by what they considered to be the firm promise by this government that this dam would be built. The minister has said that he has not promised that the dam would be built; but he has certainly created an impression in the minds of the people of Saskatchewan that this government would proceed with this project. I appeal to him on grounds of political honesty, if nothing else, because in some way or another the people in that area have been convinced that this government is going ahead with this project. I urge him on that ground, if nothing else, to do everything that he can to persuade his colleagues that it should be undertaken, when they finally get around to discussing this project.


John George Diefenbaker: Tell them about it anyway.


George Harris Hees: Yes, tell them about it. Discuss it back and forth. I urge the minister and the other members of the government to go ahead with this project at the very earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: As a speech the minister's was a fine statement. He talked for some hour and a half but I am not sure that he had sufficient time to make himself too clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say that if I had not been asked any questions I would have got through in an hour and made it clear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not interested in the history of the past. At the moment I am interested in what the forecast is for the future.
The minister did give us, although he did not need to give it to us, his own personal view that he is in favour of the building of the dam. We have known that for many years since he has made it the basis of many election promises and the minister knows that is true.
68108-112J
South Saskatchewan River Project
He said, in the course of his speech, that he had never said the dam would be built. He could not say that without cabinet consent, but he did promise it in the political sense-and the minister need not shake his head at me. I heard him at the technical school in Saskatoon-he promised $110 million of expenditure of federal money on the undertaking, if we may call it that, the next year. I know there was certain mention of Alberta, but I also know that at that time the Saskatchewan project was supposed to cost only $65 million, and I know that in the minds of his listeners and in the press- because I have the clipping-$110 million was promised.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. Reference has been made twice, both by the hon. member who preceded him and by the hon. member who is now speaking, to an expenditure of $110 million. That expenditure which was under discussion for some years was an expenditure that was reported here to the committee of this house in 1943 and it was $110 million covering all four of these projects. We know now that it is much bigger than that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Exactly. It covered those four projects. It included building the South Saskatchewan dam, in those days a project the estimate for which was much less than at present. Certainly we had the conviction that that amount of money at that time would have covered it, whether that was right or wrong.
I took down a note or two of some of the minister's remarks today and I might deal with these first. He expressed his personal view, but at that particular time I had the impression here that he was not expressing the view of the government. He did that later. He was asked about the word "we", and I will come to that matter later. But he did not give us any decision as to action or inaction as the result of this report. I propose to keep to the subject in spite of the smoke screen that was laid down by the minister, as he is so capable of doing. I remember what happened once before when I twitted him-if that is the right word-on this particular matter. The minister has a habit, when you ask him question A, of going to question B; and as the former member for Cariboo said at the time, then we are all at "C". As a matter of fact that has been the situation in so far as the people of Saskatchewan are concerned ever since 1943, when the minister started this campaign-a campaign, may I say, of various kinds.
I believe in taking the minister at his word, but my word is also of some value. I know what I heard him say on the radio

South Saskatchewan River Project and I have seen him quoted by men whom I consider to be good reporters. I know they can make mistakes; they have made some with reference to myself. The minister says this-I was amazed at this statement-and I wrote it down as he said it: "P.F.R.A. is not associated with the building of the dam". We know it is not the job of P.F.R.A. to build the dam, but I should like to have the minister check the figures. I might say to him that when he gives 1946 or 1947 as the date of any survey into this matter, it goes back further than that. In the sessional paper No. 170B of Tuesday, February 3, I asked the question:
What was the total amount spent by P.F.R.A., since and including 1942 to the present date,

And then note the words:
-upon studies or surveys of the South Saskatchewan river project.
The question is clear enough. Then we have the answer. We have a total expenditure, for the years for which I asked, of $2,780,489. I am going to suggest to the minister that that is a great deal of money to spend on a survey for one project and that it must have resulted in the accumulation of a good deal of expert knowledge with regard to that particular project.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend allow me to answer the question he raises? This report says that the money was spent out of P.F.R.A. funds down to 1948-49. Some money was spent under P.F.R.A. each year during the period when we were investigating the possibilities of building a dam somewhere in Saskatchewan. When the location was determined, from there on it was $869,000 in 1949-50 and large sums after that, not taken out of P.F.R.A. but out of the major projects vote.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think my question was fairly specific and that I obtained a reasonably specific answer. My interpretation of that answer is that P.F.R.A. spent almost $3 million specifically on surveys into the practicability of building what is known as the South Saskatchewan dam.
The next thing I come to is the part where the minister says the matter has never been discussed in the dominion cabinet. I have always admired the minister as a missionary for this project before the cabinet. I can only say I am disappointed that the matter has never been brought before that body. The situation looks bad. I would suggest that it does not look as though the minister had any particular faith in his colleagues, or else it looks as though his colleagues have no particular faith in him. Yet later he uses the term "we"; and in reply to a


question he said that that "we" referred to himself and his colleagues in the cabinet.
I was interested to know that the members of the commission had been appointed by the Minister of Agriculture himself. Then I was astonished at the following statement; I am not sure that I picked it up properly. Apparently he was pleased with this report because, forsooth, it finds in the opposite direction from his own personal favourable opinion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is as I understood what the minister said.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member wishes to be clear on that point may I say that what I said was the very opposite. I said the fact I was concerned about was whether a dam could be made to stay at that location. They have not said that it could not be made to stay there, a fact which has justified me in thinking it can stay there.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I thank the minister. The next statement I come to is the statement that there had not actually been any discussion with the province of Saskatchewan. That also is an amazing thing to me in view of the correspondence, copies of which I have here, between Premier Douglas and, may I say, the minister himself. It is dated 1951. I might quote a line or two from it. This is from Premier Douglas and he is addressing the Minister of Agriculture:
My colleagues and I are most anxious that the * South Saskatchewan river development project shall be proceeded with at the earliest possible date. As soon as the federal government has announced its intention-
If there has been no discussion, I suggest that it would be difficult for them to announce the intention.
-to proceed with this undertaking we are prepared to negotiate and sign an agreement on the basis of the allocation of costs outlined above.
Just in case we might not be sure that the minister had received that communication, here is the answer to it written by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to Hon. T. C. Douglas:
I note that as soon as the federal government has announced its intention to proceed with this undertaking your government is prepared to negotiate and sign an agreement on the basis of the above allocation of costs.
Mr. Douglas said in a letter following:
In view of the foregoing, we cannot see that any further delay is necessary. We would urge again that the government of Canada should recognize its obligations in this matter and undertake the immediate construction of this project which will undoubtedly benefit the nation as a whole and Saskatchewan in particular.

My own idea about this commission being set up was this. I did not see any necessity for a commission at all. I was basing that view on the fact that if $3 million had been spent by competent engineers solely on the study and survey of this particular question, then everything that could be said had been said. I suggest that is the reason the people of Saskatchewan got the idea that this was simply another stall to put the matter off for a year in order to give the minister time to bring the matter before the dominion cabinet for discussion. At any rate the letter continues:
Dr. L. B. Thomson has in fact expressed to us-
Again this is a letter from the premier to the Minister of Agriculture.
-the view that no irrigation project in Canada has ever been so thoroughly and carefully documented as this proposal.
Mr. Douglas says:
We cannot appreciate the need for this further review, but are of course prepared to co-operate with the committee in any way we possibly can expedite their work.
That seems a reasonable position to take. Now that we have finished the discussion with the minister, the main thing is that we have to keep our eye on the ball. If I may use the vernacular, the main thing is, where do we go from here? What is the prospect for the future? Judging by the minister's statement today, I would think it is not very bright. He has been talking of ten years, fifteen years and so on. Of course he has this justification, that we have been ten years or fifteen years in the past and that again can be translated in terms of another ten years or fifteen years in the future.
As I see it, the main thing we have to concern ourselves with is that the report of the commission on this project has been unfavourable. Like other towns in the district, we in the city of Saskatoon are terribly disappointed. We are progressing in that town. Things have been progressing. We will be getting natural gas next year. It would seem that electric power will be cheaper there in the future. We had hoped that this project would have increased the population of the surrounding area, would have increased and made more profitable business in the city, and that we might have had a beginning of heavy industry owing to the fact that power would have been abundant and that more local markets would be available. Therefore I do not think anyone there or in the surrounding territory will accept this decision of the commissioners as final. We think there should be a further investigation before this matter is completely written off.
South Saskatchewan River Project
Previous speakers have opened wide and deep holes in the report itself. I shall not do that. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), among others, took the report paragraph by paragraph and gave it some criticism.
There were two circumstances particularly conducive to an unfavourable report. One of these was the fact that the district, as the minister well knows, has for the last two years enjoyed a much better rainfall than it had throughout the previous years. That is to say, the commission held its sittings after two of the most prosperous years, in the matter of wheat crops owing to extra precipitation, that we have had in our history. If that report had been written by men who were sitting in a hotel room full of dust, with dust all over their tables, dust on their floors and wind howling outside the window, I fancy the report would have had a different complexion. If it had been written in the year 1936 or 1937 it would have been different. The other unfortunate thing is the death of Dr. Widtsoe who, as I see it, was really the only irrigation man on that commission, because I understand the other men can be classified as power engineers. They were interested chiefly in the potential production of power from that project.
Well, we must not allow a red herring to be drawn across the trail. By the term "red herring" I refer to these counter-proposals, most of which I think would favour the province of Alberta. Alberta has already benefited from any irrigation work the dominion government has undertaken. I came across an editorial in the Leader-Post which says:
Up to now, condemnation of the report has been unanimous, in Saskatchewan at least, although a contrary note has been sounded in Alberta where that government's minister of agriculture expressed gratitude to the commission and declared, in effect, that its recommendations were exactly what the neighbouring province wanted.
I do not know whether that is the statement to which the minister referred when he said he could hardly believe that the man meant to say what he was apparently reported as having said, and I share that feeling with him because I do not think Alberta, which has nothing to lose in this particular matter, would give this as their considered opinion about a thing which would so benefit the population of a neighbouring province.
These other things of course are only supplementary. They are not substitutes for the main project. The main objection to the project in the report is the cost. I think the estimated cost was $247 million, and I believe they raised that to $250 million. A great
1752	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project many other people do not accept that figure. It is about twice as great as the estimate of the P.F.R.A. engineers, and I do not believe their estimate was given very much before this one in point of time. We have always wondered why the P.F.R.A. engineers were not given an opportunity to come before the commission to say whatever they had in their minds. We think the government was in some way or other opposed to its own engineers and officials going to the place where they might give opinions favourable to the project.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I repeat what I said the other day. These men were available to the commission at all times, and the commission did see them about all these matters.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Not in a public hearing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is not necessary; they saw them and had their opinions.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That may be so, but they certainly were not called before a public hearing.
As to the talk that this great expenditure is not justified in the national interest, well, it is apparently in the national interest to spend a billion dollars on the St. Lawrence seaway in the east. We in the west are not opposed to that. I am sure none of our western members has opposed it, or I have not heard of any of them opposing it. If it is for the good of Canada, they are for it. If the government is prepared to spend that much money in eastern Canada in the national interest, we also claim some share of the national purse in the national interest, and we do believe that this project would be in the national interest. That the provincial government has guaranteed to do its share has been amply proven. I am not going to read the correspondence; it is all on record. I think it has been put on the record earlier in this debate. I refer to letters from Premier Douglas.
After the 1949 election, when the Minister of Agriculture came back and told us so blandly that we could not do anything without the consent of the province, I think Premier Douglas sent either a letter or a telegram to the minister assuring the minister of that province's co-operation. And in the face of changed circumstances, even if the cost in this report were accepted, there is the record of the correspondence between Premier Douglas and the minister in which the premier again, in spite of the raised estimate, assured the minister of his co-operation in that regard. I think the correspondence was put on the record by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I am not going to touch on it today.


I have said that the P.F.R.A. officials had valuable evidence which they could have submitted had they been asked for it at a public hearing. We do not know what they said privately to these engineers. We are not interested, because this is public business and public business must be a matter of record. I suggest that these are men who know something about the thing they are doing. The minister will agree with that, and furthermore these men have lived with it. I do not mean that metaphorically; I mean it literally. They have lived there in Saskatchewan doing their work. They understand the conditions. A lot of them have lived there during the dry years. They made extensive studies. As I have said, a large amount of money has been spent on these studies. The amount spent on studies and surveys was $2,780,489. I suggest that when the commission was set up, to a great extent the facts were already known. I have already quoted Mr. Thomson's remark in that regard.
Now, I am not going to suggest that these latter surveys, the ones that I do not think were particularly necessary, were made purely for political reasons. But I do say that their outward manifestation certainly did not do any harm to the Liberal party in Saskatchewan throughout those years. People who see these engineers with their cars and1 bulldozers working along the river bank will say, "This government is really going to do something".
As a matter of fact I have come to be just a little bit political. As I say, I think the whole political history of the thing has been somewhat unsavoury. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has done much to promote this idea and, more than that, to popularize it in the public mind. Presumably this is done in the interests of the nation, but if a little popular favour happens to fall his way or to his side, and he can garner a few votes, that is all to the good, of course.
We do not blame him for that, so long as he fulfils the promises he makes. In 1944 the vast sums to which I have referred were promised; I have heard the minister make reference to them, myself. Then in 1945, before the election, it was exactly the same thing. Then came the by-election in Rosthern. I believe it was in 1948, when the junior member for Rosthern (Mr. Boucher) was elected. We had maps-do you remember the maps in the Star-Phoenix, and in other papers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The by-election was in 1949.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 1948; he came here in 1949.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I took part in it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: With all due respect to the minister, I would just as soon trust the memory of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right; but if you want the truth I will give it to you.


George Harris Hees: If you want the truth, go to Paul.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not know whether the minister perpetrated the material put out by our Liberal friends at that time, but everybody knows that the Rosthern area is for the most part away up north of Saskatoon, and would not be affected by this project. But they have lakes and rivers all over that map.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same map that is in here.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Then on October 20, 1948, the then member for Rosthern, Mr. Tucker, said, "It is up to the people of Rosthern to give their endorsation to Mr. Boucher, the Liberal candidate, if they want the project proceeded with".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit an interruption?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the minister objecting to what I am saying?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I want to correct what I said a moment ago. For the first time in many weeks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was right.


George Harris Hees: And Paul was wrong. Well, what do you know about that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the minister knows, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is always right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am going to suggest that there is a threat in what was said by Mr. Tucker at that time-"if they want the project proceeded with". There were lots of statements. It was a subtle sort of thing, with references to the necessity of a more co-operative government in Saskatchewan. There was a suggestion, for instance, that if we had a government in Saskatchewan of the same political complexion as the federal government, it would be much simpler to get these things done. Then Mr. Boucher came to Ottawa; and I now hear that Mr. Tucker has decreed that Mr. Boucher is to leave Ottawa.
In 1949 we had the same problem, this time just before a federal election. "Send me down 14 Liberal members," said the Minister of Agriculture and Mr. Tucker, "and everything will be fine." Well, the Liberal members came down, but we still have no dam.
South Saskatchewan River Project


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the members.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I remember that in 1949 someone sent me a specimen of the election literature of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) in which he said, "Send me to Ottawa, if you want water in Regina." Well, Regina still wants water.


Mr. McCusker:: They are building the pipe line now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend reminds me of a bus driver I met in the north of Ireland. I had been travelling for three weeks, almost always in the rain, going east to the Atlantic coast, going across on the boat. For three weeks it rained steadily. I said to the Irish bus driver, "Is it always raining like this? Does the sun never shine?" "Oh," he said, "sir, just give it time." And I presume my hon. friend from Regina will be saying at the next election, "Just give us time and we will get you water, and a lot of other things."


Emmett Andrew McCusker: You will have it there.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The amazing thing was that when we came back in 1949 the minister was very genial. He had just won and was very pleased. When we said, "Well now, here you are with your Liberal majority; when do we get the dam?" he said, "Well, you cannot do anything without the co-operation of the provinces." Premier Douglas' letter was swift in reply to that.
But still nothing was done. I remember suggestions that the minister had changed his attitude, and he said, "There is no change in attitude. It is our child. Why should we desert it now?" Well, I should go back to my Irish history again. I remember that when certain old ladies went around in the cities wearing their black shawls and begging for money they always borrowed a little child, because it would make a better appeal to the public. It makes me think of the minister whose child, this project, has nevei grown up. It is just the same size yeai after year; and between elections he would like to leave it on the provincial doorstep.
Here we are in 1953, with another electior in the offing. I can say that we, all of us including the minister and the government have come to the end of the road. The min ister told us that he had gone underground Well, that is a very significant phrase. I: he knows anything about English hunting he will know what that phrase means. A better expression would be to say that he hac gone to earth; that is the phrase they use
It has been a long road; I cannot call it i crooked road because that might be unpar
1754	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project liamentary; but I can say it has been a tortuous one. I suggest the minister is now at the end of it. We have now come to the time when there can be no more deviation. Now is the time of decision.
I note that the minister described the report as a silly dam report; I suggest he could have changed the order of the words and still have been right. I am pleased to note that the minister is still in favour of the project.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is all a matter of how you spell it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: But I would like to remind the minister, when he is thinking in these terms, that a negative decision involves him as the responsible minister of the government, whether he is in favour of it or whether he is not in favour of it personally. And I suggest he had better find out as soon as possible. Since he has never discussed the matter with the cabinet, I suggest now would be a good time to start because, as I have said, he will have to shoulder the responsibility for that decision.
There has been some talk of what was said and was not said away back in 1943. There have been references to what was promised and what was not promised. It all looks very confusing. I ran into an interesting thing which goes back to 1944 or 1945, certainly to a time prior to the 1945 election. Then a Liberal candidate speaking at Moose Jaw before the election of 1945 said:
There is still a lot of detail work to be done-
He can say that again now.
-but the main lines have been thoroughly gone into and it has been found to be economically sound, and will be commenced immediately the men are available to do the work.
At that time there was a shortage of labour. Then there was a paid advertisement in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, under the sponsorship of the Liberal party of Saskatchewan. This was just before the election, and it read:
The southern Saskatchewan Thunder creek irrigation project alone will undoubtedly contribute much to the prosperity of both our city and surrounding district, which interests are interlocking. This project will be commenced immediately men and material are available.


James Garfield Gardiner: Finished long ago.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Then on the last sheet there is a quotation from a broadcast, I presume a political one, made by my hon. friend the attorney general of Saskatchewan. This is back in 1944, previous to the 1945 election. What a prophet he was when he said:
I am prepared to go out on a limb and predict that in spite of their definite promises and pledges


the Liberals will advance the scheme just far enough in the next four or five years to use it again as bait in the next federal election. I realize I can be made to look foolish if the prediction turns out wrong but I know the Liberals well enough to be without fear that the limb I am on will break off under me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How right he was.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: How right he was. One can get a certain amount of humour out of this situation, but I should like to say just a word or two to my hon. friends who live in eastern Canada. Their problem is not caused by not having enough water, but by having too much. You have it all around you in your lakes, rivers and streams. I do not think my hon. friends from the eastern part of Canada can get the picture at all, for instance in regard to dry farming. They are not dry farming conscious; they are not drought conscious.
It is true you had a depression here, but we had to face the effects of that world depression plus the ruination of our farm industry by drought. It was a case of depression plus starvation. In the east you had some industry, there was something going on, and you had food. May I say that food was one thing which some of the people in those areas in Saskatchewan, as my hon. friends well know, just did not have.
In thinking of the national interest, let us consider what was spent on relief in those days. I have not the figure, but I believe it was $187 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Altogether, over the period.


James Garfield Gardiner: $186 million.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know there were two 10-year periods when the amounts spent were practically the same, and my point is that if those amounts were added together you would have enough to build this South Saskatchewan river dam. It would have been more than enough to build it in those days. That money came out of the pockets of the national taxpayer. These things recur; this may happen again and this dam and irrigation project would be insurance against that particular type of misfortune.
My eastern friends have had no experience with drought. They do not know what it is to live through a dust storm, to see the constantly-sifting sand piling up on the road allowances in great mounds by the telephone poles, mounds which are still there today but fortunately now covered with green grass.
I noticed one silly line in the report where someone said that after all green grass did not bring about a prosperous economy. I want to say to him that the difference between

green and grey is a matter of life and death, the difference between starvation and existence.
Many people in Saskatchewan found that out. Men had to shoot down their stock with the possible exception of one milch cow. A farmer would go to the nearest town to buy a single bale of hay to haul back in his buggy to feed the cow. People in the east have no conception of these things. They have no idea how the Russian thistles piled up against the fences and gates. They do not know how our precious six inches of topsoil, practically our only source of wealth in Saskatchewan, was deposited in the ditches and along the road allowances or at any point where it could be piled up by the wind. That precious topsoil was depleted. Then we had the invasion of grasshoppers which ate the small bit of green grass that had been left.
There was the trek north. Between 1930 and 1937, every morning in Saskatoon we would be awakened at five or six o'clock by the wagons going north. You would look out and see a pitiful hayrack with a team of thin horses, a cook stove, probably a barrel containing most of the household goods, and sometimes a single cow tied behind. There might be three or four children and the mother. They were heading northwest in pursuit of that green grass which the report says is not too important. It was in that way that Loon Lake and Meadow Lake and many other districts were settled by those who are living there today. Since the rains have come many of them have returned to their old homes.
I have tried to tell of these conditions, but the reality was much worse than anything I can describe. We have seen these things and we are conscious of them. Easterners may not believe it, but every Sunday afternoon in the summer three or four hundred cars will drive up to a small dam near my home for one purpose only, just to watch the water go by. Those of us who came through that experience of drought have a realization of what water is worth. That water is going down to the sea, yet it could mean life to parched land, it is water which would provide a livelihood for farmers, increased prosperity for our towns and added industry. In the name of my' own city and the constituency of Saskatoon I ask that this project be proceeded with forthwith.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which was placed before the house on the motion to go into supply presents an opportunity for hon. members to express their opinion as to whether there should or should
South Saskatchewan River Project not be definite provision by the government for the construction of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river along with the other works that would go with it.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) gave his reasons for not supporting the amendment to the motion to go into supply, and also for not supporting the subamendment.
He says the statement in the amendment which has been moved is not correct. He indicates that there is a provision in the estimates for a sum of money, and for that reason he cannot support the amendment. He has made it abundantly clear in his statement to the house this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the figure included in the estimates is not for construction. Let that be clearly in the mind of every hon. member who seeks an excuse in the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon for voting against the amendment before the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to keep the record
straight, may I call attention to the fact that at page 121 of the estimates there are four items:	Bow river irrigation project, St.
Mary irrigation project, South Saskatchewan river development, and Buffalo Pound lake reservoir, and the others all include construction. They are all under construction, and there is no reason why this amount cannot be used in the same way.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has made it
abundantly clear this afternoon that this is not for construction. In fact all his earlier statements would have been meaningless if it were for construction, because he told us this afternoon that he has never at any time said that this construction was going ahead. I must confess that came as a surprise after some of the reports that have appeared from time to time in the press. Nevertheless that is his statement. If that is his statement, then it would seem quite obvious that the item included in the estimates is not for construction. Since it is not for construction then it is appropriate that those members who think there should be construction should have the opportunity to express their opinion in the manner provided by the amendment and the subamendment.
The reason the minister has given for not supporting the subamendment is that the P.F.R.A. engineers have not made recommendations. Some members will have difficulty in determining when a recommendation becomes a recommendation if the statement of the minister is correct. Most certainly the engineers who have served with the P.F.R.A.

South Saskatchewan River Project administration have been very emphatic in publicly making their recommendation on different occasions that this project should be proceeded with. The report on the South Saskatchewan river project, printed by the king's printer with the heading "Department of Agriculture" and carrying the date of April, 1951, gives a long series of benefits which the engineers say would result from proceeding with this development. They put forward the benefits that would result from irrigation, power, municipal water supply and recreation.
Not only have they given their explanation of the extensive benefits that would result from the development, but in public they have indicated quite clearly their belief that it should be proceeded with. The minister this afternoon has made it rather difficult for us to understand exactly what his position is. He has told us that never at any time has he made the statement that the South Saskatchewan river dam was going to be built. Undoubtedly that will be disappointing to many people who thought he had. Undoubtedly they will expect some further explanation of the reports, which he would now appear to regard as erroneous, giving the very opposite impression. The words he used were:	"On no occasion at any time
have I stated that the South Saskatchewan river dam was going to be built." Those words make it clear that there should be a motion before the house to give some of us a chance to say by a vote, which is the only way we can say it effectively, that this dam should be built and that the project should be proceeded with.
There is one thing in regard to which I think there will be agreement on both sides of the house. The minister has said that this is not a subject of concern only to the people of Saskatchewan. With that I am sure there will be general agreement. The subject is one of interest to every Canadian who believes that we are citizens of one country, and that it is the responsibility of the members of this house, from whatever part of Canada they come and on whichever side of the house they sit, to bear in mind that our responsibility is to the people of Canada as a people living in one country which we all serve.
The Minister of Agriculture left us in some uncertainty as to what his exact meaning was. In spite of some interesting revelations as to discussions in cabinet council, he has told us that this subject has never been discussed by the government of Canada in council. He left some uncertainty as to that positive statement by his reference to


the various occasions when items have been entered in the estimates for the necessary preliminary work. Nevertheless, as the Speaker has pointed out on different occasions, we are bound to accept the statement of the minister; and his statement is that this subject has never yet been discussed by the government of Canada in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the question as to whether we are going to build the dam.


George Alexander Drew: That is what X understood. The minister has now again confirmed the fact that never yet in cabinet council has the question been discussed of whether or not they would proceed with the dam. On the basis of that statement I submit there is every reason why we should be considering an amendment such as we have before us and why hon. members should indicate to the government by their votes that they do want this project proceeded with.
There may be some suggestion that the facts are not yet available. There may be some suggestion that a further inquiry should be conducted. Surely there must be some end to inquiries before action is taken. Of course I do agree that this government has established the practice of conducting inquiries into inquiries, and apparently it is a habit that is catching. But in this particular case there have been so many inquiries, the subject has been under consideration for so long, that one would have thought that by this time the government would be in a position to hear some discussion of this subject. No matter what the outcome of the vote on the amendment may be, I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture that for the first time he give the cabinet the benefit of his knowledge of this subject, because I think they might be interested in the South Saskatchewan dam and also in whether or not this subject, which is discussed so much in Saskatchewan, might not also be discussed by the cabinet which is the executive body of parliament.
I for one am greatly surprised to hear for the first time this afternoon that it has never been discussed although we have discussed it so frequently in the house. That very fact of course naturally fortifies the opinion of those of us who think that 4t should be discussed and that it would be helpful for the government to hear views expressed on it, since they have not received the benefit of the views of the minister in cabinet council.
This subject has been under consideration in different ways for a very long time. In fact it was first discussed before confederation, before 1867. It had been pointed out

that it would be highly desirable to augment the waters of the South Saskatchewan river by the construction of a dam at an appropriate place. Throughout long years the possibility of using water power in that river has been under consideration. It is now considerably more than forty years since I visited that river for the first time and was told by people living in that area of the wonderful results that would flow from the construction of a dam, and the use of water for irrigation and power. It has been under consideration for a very long time.
During the years since people were convinced that this would be a desirable project hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unused energy has flowed down that river because the decision has not been made. Throughout all these years whatever water power was there in potential form has gone to waste. Throughout all these years whatever water could have been used for irrigation has also been unused.
Granted that there must always be some time of beginning, granted that the reasons for proceeding with this development were not so apparent in those early years as they are today, the fact remains that throughout the last twenty years at least there has been the most convincing evidence of the necessity for the effective use of the water resources that are available in that area, and for the development also of whatever power potential can be harnessed on the South Saskatchewan.
This subject must be of interest to all members of this house who are called upon to consider other ventures at the same time. To many of us it must seem strange that it is only in the case of this particular development that it seems to be so necessary to refer the responsibility to a royal commission. There was no royal commission appointed when it was decided to support the Canadian Pacific Railway which gave us transportation right across Canada. Engineers were employed by the government and upon the advice of those engineers the government acted. At that time the government was not told that there was no population adequate to use the rail services that would cross the prairies. At that time the government acted in the belief that the way to get population there was to provide that facility.
There was no royal commission appointed at the time it was decided by another Conservative government years later to create the Canadian National Railways by the amalgamation of different services across the
South Saskatchewan River Project country. They acted on the advice of engineers, and the decision was made upon the advice of competent engineers at that time.
There was no royal commission appointed to find out whether it was appropriate for the taxpayers of Canada to construct a canal across the Niagara peninsula. Competent engineers were employed and their decisions and recommendations guided the government at that time. There was no royal commission appointed to inquire into the construction and the subsequent expansion and development of the Sault canals, and the power made available from that source. There again competent engineers were relied upon and the decisions taken on their recommendations.
This house has on different occasions been called upon to indicate its views in regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterway, something that will undoubtedly be of benefit to a particular part of Canada. Nevertheless it is to be regarded with satisfaction on the part of Canadians generally that no local consideration has guided the expressions of members of this house in their discussions of this subject. With admirable recognition of the unity of Canada in matters of this kind, members of this house from right across Canada have indicated their belief that although the development of this St. Lawrence deep waterway will undoubtedly most greatly benefit Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-and undoubtedly Ontario most of all-it is something that meets with the approval of all members because of the increased economic strength that will come to Canada and the increased production which will result from this development.
I submit that hon. members of this house, on both sides of the house, should regard this matter in the same light and should be prepared to accord the same measure of support to this project in Saskatchewan that they have accorded to the St. Lawrence deep waterway and to these other projects which have all been regarded as part of the expanding development of a great nation. It is in that light that we should express our opinions here.
I was interested in the statement by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) that he would like to support this idea but that the motion, in his opinion, constituted a want of confidence motion and, therefore, he would be unable to support it. One might ask when the members on the opposite side would ever be free to support any such motion. In fact, although I must be very cautious not to suggest any lack of independence in their thinking, one might almost

South Saskatchewan River Project wonder just how that independence is to be expressed if they are to be unable to support any recommendation that has not been put before this house by the government itself. Certainly I would think some of them would welcome the opportunity to assert that independence which has been proclaimed so vigorously in this house by supporting a project of this nature, particularly when it has been stated by the hon. member who moved it that he is quite prepared that this should not be regarded as a want of confidence motion, but rather that he wants this considered as a motion that will permit a free expression of the members of this house that we want this important development in Saskatchewan to proceed as part of the development of Canada as a whole.
That course has been followed on other occasions. There have been occasions when ministers of the crown directly concerned with the subject matter of resolutions have said:	We ask that this be regarded as a
free vote.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as the minister primarily responsible in this case, to inform the house that he asks that the vote be a free vote; and that although the government have not discussed this subject, nevertheless they have permitted him to indicate that this motion will not be regarded as a want of confidence motion. That would be very helpful to those who, like the hon. member for Regina, would wish to vote for it but feel restrained because, although they are completely independent, they nevertheless feel concerned about the fact that the vote might be misinterpreted if, by any chance, enough of them voted for the amendment to actually carry it on this occasion.
It would be a very healthy thing, Mr. Speaker, and it would bring fresh confidence to the people of Canada in the real independence of thought in this if, first of all, we had a statement by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture that this is a free vote; and then if we had an indication by the members that they are sufficiently free to support an amendment which has as its purpose the declaration of our common interest in Saskatchewan as well as every other part of Canada. Even if the Minister of Agriculture hesitates to give this assurance in view of the fact that he has not discussed the subject with the cabinet, nevertheless I would hope there would be some hon. members from Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada as well who would say-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted a
correction, I have not moved anything in the 

house at all. It is not my motion that is before the house, and it is not my amendment that is before the house.


An hon. Member:: Just your baby.


George Alexander Drew: The right hon. Minister of
Agriculture surely can be forgiven for thinking that it might be his motion because he has spoken about the subject so often; and because he has spoken about the subject so often, one would have thought he would have welcomed the opportunity to ask for the free support of a motion which interprets the view he has expressed over and over again in this house and outside of it.
This is not his motion, but I am suggesting that it is a motion that is entirely consistent with the view he has expressed, and that if he will only ask the government to listen to him for the first time in regard to this subject and then, after they have heard him, to give him the authority to call for a free vote, then with that encouragement we might actually get from the members of this house an expression of opinion in support of something that I believe the majority of the members of this house want and would like to vote for if they did not find, for one reason or another, that they were not prepared to declare their opinion at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: It will be a nice way to send a message to the government.


George Alexander Drew: Since the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has never carried this subject to the cabinet, it would be helpful if someone else did so; and this is one chance we will all get. I would hope that some of the hon. members will look at the situation in that light.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said that I have not carried the subject to the cabinet. I said that the subject has not been discussed by the cabinet.


George Alexander Drew: Am I to take it that the minister carried it to the cabinet and that they refused to discuss a subject which he brought there?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


George Alexander Drew: I am discussing this matter in all seriousness. What the Minister of Agriculture has now said is that he did not say that it had not been carried to the cabinet. He only says that they have not discussed it. If those words mean anything at all, they mean that he carried it to the government and they would not listen to him. We have the chance to ask the government to listen to him on this occasion.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been discussed.


George Alexander Drew: The minister again repeats that it has not been discussed. Since he indicates that he has carried it to the government and that it has not been discussed, may I repeat that this is a chance for hon. members, by their vote, to carry this subject to the government and to help the minister to get this subject before the government in spite of their earlier refusal to listen to him.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is carrying the matter a little bit beyond what most of us would find easy to accept. Of course we must and do accept the minister's statement that it has not been discussed. But we thought the minister was one who usually insisted upon being heard. I think most of us will regret to learn that a minister who is so vigorous in his statements in this house is so unsuccessful in making himself heard in cabinet council.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will be heard at the right time.


John George Diefenbaker: You will be heard yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The silent member of the cabinet.


George Harris Hees: The silent partner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Silence is golden.


George Harris Hees: It is a little bit tarnished in this case, though.


George Alexander Drew: The question of course arises as to why it became necessary to have this commission. I hope hon. members will read this Hansard carefully. I also hope that Hansard records the words exactly as they were spoken on this occasion. I hope that we shall see in Hansard exactly what has been said here this afternoon, because some of the hon. members will undoubtedly have difficulty in understanding exactly what it was that the minister was trying to explain to us when he said that he was really satisfied with this report because of his belief that those who had been appointed were predisposed to find against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think some of
the hon. members of this house who have been interested in this subject for some time will wonder why men who were predisposed against it were chosen. Not that we would expect the government necessarily to poll them in advance as to what kind of finding they were going to make; but the minister's statement in regard to what he thought their views would be in advance raises some question as to whether the government, in supporting the appointment of these gentlemen to the commission-though they had
South Saskatchewan River Project never discussed the subject-were also under the impression that these commissioners were predisposed against this project.


John George Diefenbaker: That might explain why the commission was set up.


George Alexander Drew: It may explain why the commission was set up. I think we have a great deal more to hear about this matter.
At the time the commission was set up suggestions were made that this was the reason it was appointed, namely that it was expected that the commission would find against it. At that time the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has moved the amendment we are now discussing, objected to the appointment of a commission on that ground, as did other members of this house; they objected because of the fact that they thought the commissioners were predisposed against it. That concern has been borne out by the report of the commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we ought to be clear on my position. If I am not clear from what is in Hansard-and I am quite sure that I am-may I say that my statement was to this effect. When the matter was referred to the commission my chief concern was whether or not you could build a dam at that location and make it stay there. Whether or not these men were favourable, if in their own opinion they had any preconceived ideas on it they might have been inclined to say:	"Well, maybe
you do not need a dam there." That would be my inclination, after having read through their report. But in spite of that being their opinion in the report itself, they have not said that a dam cannot be built on that site and made to stay there. As a matter of fact, the inference from the report is that a dam can be built there and can be made to stay there.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
quite definite that the report is clear on that subject, that the dam can be built there and will stay there. What we are concerned about is that we want to get it there.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: That is the purpose of the amendment now before the house. A great many members say that they want to get the dam there, which the report shows can stay there once it is constructed.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the most important feature.


George Alexander Drew: I shall be greatly interested to see what Hansard says. While I do not

South Saskatchewan River Project claim that I can quote his exact words, I will indeed be most surprised if the Hansard record does not show clearly that the Minister of Agriculture said that one of the reasons he was so pleased with the report of the commission was that although they were chosen with knowledge that they were predisposed against this project, they found it could be done. That was the statement to which I was referring in the remarks that I have just made.
This of course is not by any manner of means the first time this matter has been under consideration. The minister has read from an editorial in the Calgary Albertan. I therefore feel sure that he will not object to my referring to an editorial in the Regina Leader-Post which appeared on February 4 under the heading "Can't Swap Horses in Midstream."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Horses again?


George Harris Hees: Horses again.


George Alexander Drew: I hope the minister will not think that in this there is any suggestion other than the ordinary colloquial reference to the word "horse" in a statement of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not change any horses for ducks, anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: They are not on the payroll there yet.


George Harris Hees: It won't be long now.


George Alexander Drew: No; the horses referred to in this editorial are not on the payroll. This editorial has this to say. In view of the minister's reference to the other editorial, I think it might be well to put this on the record:
The Hogg commission is not the first one to investigate irrigation. In 1941, in order to obtain guidance for its rehabilitation program, the federal government established the Meek commission.
It studied the St. Mary-Milk river project, and declared in its report the following year:
"It has become a generally accepted principle that the total costs of an irrigation project of this magnitude should not be charged to the lands immediately benefited. To insure completion and successful operation of the project there must be governmental assistance. The development of the St. Mary and Milk rivers project would not only be of benefit locally and provincially but would we believe be to the general advantage of Canada."
The Meek commission recommended that the federal government pay the costs of water storage as a non-recoverable contribution to the project. This subsequently became government policy with the passage of an order in council in 1947.
The Hogg commission virtually brushed aside this finding of the Meek commission. It loaded all the irrigation and most of the water storage costs on the land and on the basis of the outlandish $250 million cost estimate declared each irrigation farm 
would represent an investment of $70,000. This was one of the grounds on which it rejected the project "for the present."
Which was right, the Hogg commission or the Meek commission? Experience in every country where irrigation has been adopted on a large scale proves beyond doubt that the Meek commission was correct in declaring that the land alone cannot carry the full burden of costs. In fact, in the United States it is contended that the national benefits from irrigation are sufficiently great to justify the state paying 85 per cent of the costs- a much greater percentage than is envisaged under federal policy based on the Meek findings.
If the federal government swaps horses in midstream, while its rehabilitation job in the west is only partially completed, by belatedly rejecting the Meek report and refashioning its policy on the Hogg report, it will be dealing most unfairly with Saskatchewan.
Without quoting the remainder of that editorial, I would simply point out that it does go on to urge that the government proceed with this project which has been so long under discussion.
The commission report on the South Saskatchewan river, which was presented to this house, makes a number of recommendations which are to be found on pages 6, 7 and 8, and which must be extremely hard for anyone to accept who has followed the course of these inquiries over the years by the engineers of the P.F.R.A., by the Meek commission and by others who have inquired into this subject.
The first recommendation deals with the question of the economic returns and says that they are not commensurate at present with the cost of the project, although the project would yield social returns which "while they cannot be measured for the purpose of this report, would be of great value to the region in which it is situated."
The second recommendation says that when the time comes that this project should be proceeded with, those who are making the decision should take these matters into account:
(a)	The prospect of adequate markets for the specialty crops such as sugar beets, canning vegetables, potatoes, etc., that would be grown on the area it is proposed to irrigate.
(b)	The Canadian demand for farm products
which, when it comes more nearly into balance with production, would require a more intensive use of land resources;	.
(c)	A significant change in relationship of the price of farm products and construction costs;
(d)	The necessity for the construction of public works for the relief of unemployment.
These are things that are to be considered before this is to be proceeded with. If the government had waited for population on the prairies before it built the Canadian Pacific Railway there would not be a railway across

Canada yet. If the great hydroelectric development in Ontario had waited for customers, there would not be the largest publicly-owned project of this kind in the world today in that province. If in the case of railways built through the north lands of this country for development purposes they had waited for population, there would not yet be any population or any development in those areas.
In this country of ours, with all the immense opportunities that lie ahead, it is our duty to visualize what can come from developments of this kind and not expect the population to get there ahead of the project which is essential for their occupation of that land. If there is going to be population in this central Palliser triangle, then those people must be assured that they are going to have irrigation and power for the purposes of their daily lives in that area. The project must be assured. It must be proceeded with before the population will get there. The government certainly is putting the cart before the horse if it accepts those recommendations as the basis of the timing of this development.
The third recommendation of the commission was:
The commission finds that the available data, which are by no means complete, indicate that the said project does not represent the most profitable and desirable use which can be made of the physical resources involved.
Why is the information not complete? If the information is not complete, why have we the report? Surely it is a subject that could be considered by competent engineers.
The fourth recommendation is:
The commission recommends, in respect to No. 3 above, that further study be given to the merits of:
(a) Irrigating the area that needs water most;
(b) Bringing additional land under irrigation in the Saskatchewan river basin by pumping water direct from the river and from existing irrigation canals or extensions thereof:
(c)	The development known as the Red Deer river project, including its possible extension into the province of Saskatchewan.
The fifth recommendation is:
The commission finds that the future demand for water for irrigation could be such as to exhaust the available flow of the South Saskatchewan river, and recommends, therefore, that without delay a comprehensive, long-range program be developed that would result, over the years, in the most beneficial use being made in the interests of the people of Canada of the waters of the Saskatchewan river from its head waters to the sea.
The sixth recommendation is:
The commission finds that to implement a basin program, the conflict between the upstream consumptive use of the water for irrigation and its downstream use for generating power will have to be resolved.
South Saskatchewan River Project
The seventh recommendation of the commission is that requisite data be gathered by the appropriate governmental services, federal and provincial.
After all this inquiry and all these recommendations we have boxed the compass and we are back exactly to where we started. This commission, set up and carried forward at considerable expense to the people of Canada, recommends that the government make inquiries in consultation with the provinces, and presumably act on those inquiries.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has all been done, as I said this afternoon.


George Alexander Drew: That has been done? And the government has not heard about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the government has
heard about it. We have got it nearly all done.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid
the minister misapprehends the recommendation. This recommendation is referring to the South Saskatchewan dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. That is my criticism.
That recommendation is referring to far more than that. All we thought we were referring to was the South Saskatchewan river dam, but they have covered the whole development of the North and South Saskatchewan river basins; and practically all the work that is recommended there, as I said this afternoon, is already under way. Not only have we the set-up, as the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) knows. There has been a set-up ever since he was associated with it in Regina, gathering all this information from the provinces and from the federal authority. It is all on record in Regina.


John George Diefenbaker: The commission never
got to see the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: They could have seen it; I
do not know whether they did or not.


John George Diefenbaker: That was concealed from the commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it was not concealed from the commission. It was all there before for them to look at if they wanted to look at it; and they went there and visited Regina and I presume they looked at it.


John George Diefenbaker: No, they did not look at it.


James Garfield Gardiner: They do not say that.


George Alexander Drew: The report is very clearly written. In the eighth recommendation the commission recommends certain consideration

South Saskatchewan River Project in regard to other developments which are set out. Then there is a ninth recommendation and a tenth recommendation which relate to subjects the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) felt, I gather, were really outside the scope of the original matter; and that, I believe, is in accordance with the opinion of many hon. members.
One of the difficulties one faces in connection with this matter is that on the one hand the minister says, "We have done all these things" and on the other hand he says that this has not been discussed with the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not those things. Those matters have all been discussed with the government and passed upon, and they are part of government policy. The matter of the building of the dam has not been discussed by the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that is it.


George Harris Hees: Why is the government not interested?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are interested.


George Alexander Drew: Well, the reference to this commission was to inquire into the South Saskatchewan river project. The recommendations to which I have been referring are the recommendations of that commission, which had those instructions; and we now have their recommendations before us.
The commission also makes it clear that there are considerable social advantages connected with the plan. Anyone who has visited the area must know the extent of those advantages. He would know about the abandoned homes and the abandoned school houses in the area. He would know also about the experimental developments that have taken place, and of the demonstration near Outlook which is there for anyone to see, which shows what can be done if that soil is properly irrigated. The minister referred to that, in fact, this afternoon. There is no question but that the soil is rich and fertile, if irrigation can be carried to it.
This commission report does not find that the water cannot be carried there. It does present difficulties. It indicates certain considerations that should be kept in mind. Undoubtedly those considerations should be kept in mind by the engineers of the government. But this report does confirm that the dam can be built at the Coteau creek site. It does confirm that the water is available for purposes of power and irrigation. It does confirm that it is a practical engineering project.


The objections are based very considerably upon the estimated cost, more than twice the amount of the estimates set out in the engineering findings under P.F.R.A. who, basing their findings on 1950 costs, estimated that the whole project would cost about $103,700,000. That would be divided between the dominion and provincial governments. The government of Saskatchewan has stated publicly that it is prepared to accept its share of the cost.
When the evidence is clear that this heartland of Saskatchewan can be improved in this way; when the evidence is clear that an area which has suffered so greatly from drought and the social consequences of drought can be returned to a productive condition; when the evidence is clear that the soil can become perhaps more arable than it has ever been before; and when the reports before us demonstrate that profitable crops can be raised in the area if irrigation and power were made available at the site, then I submit that with the findings of the competent engineers of P.F.R.A. and the findings of other engineers available to us, and with the recommendation of the engineers employed by the government on other occasions, it is appropriate that the members of this House of Commons give a clear declaration of their belief that the government should now say that this project will be proceeded with and that the irrigation and electrical developments will be undertaken so they may bring a new vitality, a new prosperity, a new hope and new population to the people living in that central part of the great Palliser triangle.
Not only are there social and economic consequences, but there is also to be considered the very direct effect this will have upon the people of Saskatchewan generally. It is only natural that people who have been encouraged for so long to believe that this project was going to be undertaken are now discouraged and disheartened by the apparent acceptance of the negative findings of this commission, which was set up with the knowledge that those who were being appointed were predisposed against this dam project.
This project is vital to the heart of Saskatchewan. This project is sound from the engineering point of view; it is sound from the social point of view; it is sound from the national point of view. The only question that could be asked is this:	Is it economically sound? The P.F.R.A. engineers and other engineers report that it is. Without making adequate inquiry themselves, the recent commission have given figures which

are so highly inflated as to be discredited by anyone who has had earlier contact with the subject.
Let us remember that with the unanimous support of hon. members of the House of Commons steps have been taken from time to time to meet situations arising from unsatisfactory conditions in that area. As the minister has pointed out, the area has suffered great hardship. The government has been called upon to spend money to assist the people there. It would be far better if the money were spent on the productive enterprise that is now before us. The amendment before hon. members gives them an opportunity to support an expression of that kind. I would hope that, first of all, after due consideration the minister would inform members of the house, as ministers have on other occasions, that as has been suggested by the opposition, they are free to vote in support of the motion without its being regarded as a want of confidence vote. Then, with that freedom to vote as they wish I would hope that hon. members from every part of Canada, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, would say by their vote: As part of a great national reclamation and conservation project, we want this development proceeded with right away.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend tonight to take up much of the time of the house in participating in this debate. At the outset I should like to say that my conscience is quite clear in voting against the amendment and the subamendment now before the house. When we come to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and deal with the item having to do with the South Saskatchewan project, I shall support that item.
I have noticed during the debate that hon. members have gone back many years in the course of their speeches. Some went back to the days of confederation in 1867, some went back to 1916, some referred to the thirties. I could say considerable about the thirties, but I think that period has been pretty well covered. I think the people of Canada are fairly familiar with what happened in the western provinces during the thirties, so I shall refrain from going into that again.
South Saskatchewan River Project
Tonight I intend to go back only to 1951, and for this reason. On July 15, 1951, I started out by motor from my farm. I headed south on No. 4 highway and passed through the towns of Biggar and Rosetown. Finally we reached Swift Current, where we turned to journey west on No. 1 highway. That evening we stopped at the town of Taber in the province of Alberta. I mention this because on arriving there I had my first opportunity of seeing just what irrigation could do. I understand that at that time, because of the rainfall they had been having, it had not been found necessary to use the facilities available, but I could see the facilities that were there if required. I saw sugar beets growing and some splendid grain crops. Unfortunately, about two hours before we arrived in Taber a streak of hail had gone through that country and we saw the effect on those beautiful crops.
The following morning we arrived in Lethbridge where we found great commotion because that afternoon the St. Mary river dam was to be officially opened. Lethbridge was buzzing with people and cars. After lunch I journeyed with many thousands of people down to the site of the dam some 40 miles south of Lethbridge, and had a chance to have a good look at the project.
The official opening was under the chairmanship of our great roving reporter, Mr. John Fisher. The proceedings got under way and, if I remember correctly, the first speech we heard as we looked out toward the Rocky mountains was by the master of ceremonies, Mr. Fisher. He was followed by the premier of Alberta. Then at the appropriate moment the one who was to officially open the dam came into the picture. I should like to quote the words of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) at the time he officially opened that dam. When he put his hands on the lever in the control tower of the irrigation works and released the water from the reservoir into the main canal on its way to the land in the area, he said:
It gives me great pleasure to turn the waters, from the first nationally-constructed large reservoir, upon the fertile lands of southern Alberta. I consider the inauguration of this policy as the outstanding and most helpful achievement of my period as Minister of Agriculture for Canada over fifteen years. I trust it is only the beginning of a development which will multiply Canadian homes in the west.
The next day it was my privilege to sit in at the annual meeting of the western Canada reclamation association being held in Lethbridge. In the afternoon I was called upon by the chairman to say a few words, and I should like to repeat a few of the things I said on that occasion. One thing

South Saskatchewan River Project was quite conspicuous at that meeting; that was the absence of any representatives of one of the western provinces.
I said on that occasion, and I repeat it tonight, that we as members of parliament, when discussing these large projects, should try to look at them and consider them on a high plane. We should look at them from the broad national viewpoint instead of a narrow provincial viewpoint.
On our way back we were discussing the South Saskatchewan project. I think that project should be proceeded with for two reasons. If proceeded with it would create a lake 140 miles long in the centre of the Palliser triangle and would irrigate some 125,000 or 130,000 acres by gravity alone. I think those two reasons are sufficient, as far as I am concerned, for making a start on this project. I should like to read a short passage from the report, and I quote from page 10 as follows:
The Importance of the Prairies to Canada's Economy
7. The commercial attributes of agricultural expansion in western Canada have been defined with great lucidity by Professor Fowke in his historical review of the economic development of the prairie provinces, prepared for the commission. (Part II, chapter 3)
Western agricultural expansion, (he wrote), led to eastern urbanization, to the growth and prosperity of commercial and industrial centres. To equip and service the agricultural frontier there was necessarily a tremendous increase in the manufacturing, merchandising and transportation facilities of the country. The frontier farmer is typically a trader. He sells much and buys more, financing the difference by the accumulation of debt. Westward over the continental trade routes, over rivers and increasingly over railways, there moved the manufactured products of eastern cities. Eastward in return there moved the products of the expanding agricultural areas, cereals, livestock and livestock products. The national income and the national revenues multiplied, partly as a direct result of increased agricultural production but more particularly because of the commercial and industrial employments which followed inevitably in the wake of agricultural immigration and settlement.
I mentioned that we should try to keep this on a high plane, and that is just what I intend to do myself. However, I arr rather concerned about some of the alterna ve schemes that may be mentioned. Mentii .n has been made of the North Saskatchewan river. It has been brought into the picture of the South Saskatchewan dam. It is quite noticeable that there are two cities in the southern part of Saskatchewan that are not situated on the banks of a river, and they are having, and have had for a long period of time, a great water shortage. I refer to the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw. On the North Saskatchewan river there are three cities that
are developing at a great pace at the present time, the cities of Edmonton, North Battleford and Prince Albert.
So far as bringing water from the North Saskatchewan down to the South Saskatchewan is concerned, may I suggest that this might be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I can tell hon. members from actual experience and knowledge that the provincial department of highways has had great trouble in operating ferries across the North Saskatchewan river during the past five or ten years. Many ferries have been abandoned for no other reason than that during many weeks in the summer and fall there is not sufficient water for them to ply back and forth across the river. They are flat-bottomed ferries, but even so many of them have had to be removed from service and abandoned.
That is one of the reasons the people of the Lloydminster district and in the area across the river north of Lloydminster, where rail facilities are sorely needed, are in dire need of a bridge on the meridian line immediately north of Lloydminster. The fact is that on many occasions when you go down to the ferry you will see a sign as you approach reading "No crossing", and you take it for granted that the water is low.
I know there are others who intend to speak in this debate, but there is one other point I should like to mention. It is suggested that the pumping of water for irrigation would be a cost against the project. Water now being wasted would be used to generate electricity for pumping, so it could not be counted a cost. Is the commission's ratio of values fair, based as it is on land values and commodity prices of the past against costs of construction of today? May I suggest that the ratio has remained the same for the reason that as costs have advanced so have commodity prices and land values.
In conclusion, while many figures have been quoted in the report of the commission and by others with respect to the South Saskatchewan project, I understand that figures submitted by engineers and others engaged in the construction of such projects indicate that the estimated cost of the construction of the dam, which is the federal government's responsibility, would be in the neighbourhood of $68 to $84 million. In view of these figures-and even suppose the cost should reach $100 million-I would say that if money can be made available for the St. Lawrence seaway then money can be made available for this project, because both will be beneficial to the Canadian economy. We have the tools. Let us get on with the job.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this debate may well be more important than many hon. members realize. If the results of the next election are close, the Saskatchewan constituencies which are affected by this project may decide whether the government wins or loses. In my opinion the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon was disappointing. One fact did seem to emerge, that for this session at least the South Saskatchewan river project is a dead issue.
During the debate so far I have been rather surprised at the attitude of my friends from Saskatchewan who are members of the Liberal party. One member after another, including the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater), who has just spoken, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) and others, has stated that he favours building this dam. If that is so, I cannot understand why they are not prepared to let their votes follow their voices.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is very clear. It reads as follows:
This house regrets that in the estimates presented to this house no provision has been made for immediately proceeding with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
No one can take objection to that amendment. It is a simple one, and I challenge members of the Liberal party from my home province to vote as their consciences tell them. On this issue members from Saskatchewan should be just as unanimous as are the people of Saskatchewan. I do not think this is the time for technicalities. I do not think this is the time for fence sitting. Therefore when the vote does come, I appeal to them to support the amendment.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture made the rather amazing statement that the cabinet had not yet discussed this issue. If that is so, I respectfully suggest that he bring it before them immediately. If they are not prepared to take a sympathetic viewpoint, then I suggest that he should join the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and resign from the cabinet.
I should like to say a few words to eastern and maritime members. I was pleased to notice this afternoon that a Toronto member, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), supported this project as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). It is a project which is national in character. I am afraid that some hon. members like the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier) have an idea that the project is just another handout for Saskatchewan. I think that is what he termed it at dinner time today.
South Saskatchewan River Project
It is anything but another handout. It is not a government expense. This project is a capital investment, and it is self-liquidating. Over the years it will save this country millions of dollars in relief costs. It will result in the production of millions of dollars worth of additional crops and a great deal of revenue from hydro power. Therefore I appeal to hon. members from other parts of the country to recognize that it is a national project. As has been pointed out, we from Saskatchewan have supported such projects for the maritimes as the Canso causeway and dikes for New Brunswick. In central Canada we have supported the St. Lawrence seaway, in Alberta several dam projects, and so on. Today we are asking for the same kind of consideration for Saskatchewan.
It is quite true that in recent years our province has been relatively prosperous. It is quite true that moisture conditions have been good, but the house must be aware of the fact that another drought can come at any time. As a matter of fact we have had so many good years that, if we can judge from history, another dry period could arrive in 1953. I lived through the last such period and I can say that for several years there was not a blade of grass in the whole province. I saw crops wither and die. I saw thousands of cattle slaughtered or moved out of the province. Dust storms in those days were so severe you could not see across the street. I recall driving a car on many occasions and hardly being able to see the end of the engine for dust. I remember that my home city of Moose Jaw had the water turned off twelve hours a day for about six months in order to conserve water supplies. Our local packing plant had to close down because it could not get water. In the year 1937 about one-half of all the people in Saskatchewan were receiving government aid of one kind or another.
These were the conditions not very many years ago. As a matter of fact you can still find empty houses, schools and ghost towns which are a kind of memorial to the exodus of the people who lived in those areas.
Citizens of Saskatchewan fear that another such period may come along. We do not think that is necessary, because one of the mightiest of all Canadian rivers flows unused right through the heart of the dust bowl and on to Hudson bay. If the government would proceed with this dam the economy of the province could be transformed.
I remind hon. members that many of the so-called backward countries, Spain, India, China and Egypt, have already embarked on far larger projects than the one contemplated on the South Saskatchewan river. Surely

South Saskatchewan River Project then a modern nation like Canada can afford to water our burning plains. I remind hon. members too that since I have come to Ottawa I have seen parliament vote millions and millions of dollars to Britain, Belgium, Ceylon, Holland, Pakistan and other countries. I supported those gifts and I think they were needed; but if our country and this parliament can be so generous to other nations surely it can be equally generous with such a much needed project here at home.
I think the Hogg commission found no major weaknesses in this South Saskatchewan proposal. It did contend that the returns would not be commensurate with the cost. It contended that this dam would cost about $250 million; but the P.F.R.A. a year ago estimated that it would cost only $105 million. For myself, I prefer to take the P.F.R.A. figure. I would point out that the commission used cost figures which were prepared by a Calgary contractor who based his data on the findings of a United States firm called the Morrison-Knudsen Company. According to Engineering News Records of last January, this is the same company which recently submitted a bid of $7 million on a South Dakota project. The Morrison-Knudsen Company bid there was the highest of twelve competitive bids, almost twice the $3 [DOT] 7 million of the successful tenderer. If the company is as wrong on this project as it was on the South Dakota one, I think the P.F.R.A. figure is likely to be a lot closer.
Water is so valuable on the prairies that we cannot afford to let it go to waste any longer. I would join with other hon. members in urging the government at this time to override the recommendations of the commission and start building the dam this year.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say a few words on the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and also to speak to the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
I am sure we in the house are glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is present, because the Minister of Agriculture told us this afternoon that this question which has been before the people of Saskatchewan and western Canada for many years, and the report that has been made by the royal commission, have not yet been brought to the attention of the cabinet. I feel-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not go that far.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that it had not been brought to the attention of the government. I said it was not discussed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Agriculture is spending the evening trying to get himself out of his loose talk.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am spending the evening trying to straighten out my hon. friend from Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Fulton:: Have you been changing
Hansard too?


James Garfield Gardiner: I haven't changed a word. It is just the same as I said it this afternoon, but it is not as my friend from Lake Centre says it is.


John George Diefenbaker: You see, Mr. Speaker, every time one asks a question of the Minister of Agriculture the answer-


James Garfield Gardiner: You are not asking questions, you are making a statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked some questions this afternoon and I received some information which I very much appreciate; and I know that the people of Saskatchewan will appreciate it when they learn of the answers. In the past I have found that the Minister of Agriculture could be described in the words once used by Lloyd George when referring to de Valera: It is as hard to pin him down to any answer as it is to pick up mercury with a fork.
This afternoon the minister made the statement-and if he says he did not he can explain it afterwards-that this report had as yet not been brought to the attention of the government.


Mr. McCann:: He did not say anything of the kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Here is a mind reader. He was not here this afternoon.


James Joseph McCann: I was here.


John George Diefenbaker: He was not.


James Joseph McCann: I was here all afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: No, he was not.


James Joseph McCann: I was here all afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend would devote himself to television and not worry about-


James Joseph McCann: I would hate to have your picture on it.


John George Diefenbaker: You see, Mr. Speaker, how difficult it is. The mind reader who is in charge of the C.B.C. was not here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, he was.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: When I say that, I say that he was not here while the Minister of Agriculture was speaking.


James Joseph McCann: I was here and I heard his very words.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member must accept the minister's statement and he must not argue. How can hon. members argue about a declaration made by the minister or any member of the house who says that upon his honour he was in the chamber when another minister spoke? The citation I think is citation 240 or 241, which says when a member makes a statement which is peculiarly within his knowledge it must be accepted. Therefore the hon. member must accept the statement made by the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: It is particularly within my knowledge, having taken down a record of the cabinet ministers who were here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was not one cabinet minister here at one time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member not to doubt the word of the minister; because, as he knows, this subject is not new. The statement made by the minister must be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Citation 240, page 103, Beauchesne's third edition, reads:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, . . .
Citation 241 is also clear on the point.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in view of your ruling is that I was present here-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to bring it to the attention of the hon. member that this is not a matter for argument. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) did not make a speech this afternoon. It is merely a matter of attesting whether or not he was
South Saskatchewan River Project here. According to the citations I have mentioned, if the Minister of National Revenue says he was present during the time the Minister of Agriculture made his speech, even if the hon. member does not believe the statement he must accept it. The decision I am making is in accordance with the rules, and it is not debatable.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I cannot listen to two members at one time. The Minister of National Revenue wishes to explain his position.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, on my word of honour I was here during all of the time the Minister of Agriculture spoke; here in the chamber.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It must have been done with mirrors.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker. But at the time the questions were asked of the Minister of Agriculture-and that is the time to which I made reference-


An hon. Member:: The Minister of National Revenue was not here.


James Joseph McCann: I was here; and you won't say that outside.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: A great big prize fighter. Well. well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think hon. members should present the picture that is now being presented in this house.


An hon. Member:: It should be on television.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think decorum is one thing all hon. members like to preserve. We are not going to make much progress if we are going to keep on arguing whether or not a certain member was here in the chamber when he has said that he was here. The hon. member may continue, but I would ask him not to refer to this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise to a point of order. Your Honour, I concede, is perfectly correct when you say that an hon. member must accept the statement made by another hon. member as to facts within the knowledge of that hon. member. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you are going beyond what is contained in that rule when you say that an hon. member cannot suggest that the facts with reference to which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) made his statement were not the facts which were in the mind of the hon.
1768	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he made his statement that the minister was not here. Therefore if Your Honour refuses to allow the hon. member for Lake Centre to state the occasion to which he was referring you are, I submit, doing a great injustice to the hon. member who first spoke, and are going far beyond the rule to which Your Honour has referred.
To anyone listening to his speech, it appears that the hon. member for Lake Centre has made statements with reference to the presence of the Minister of National Revenue at a time when certain questions were directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It also appears obvious that the Minister of National Revenue has made a statement with respect to another occasion.


James Joseph McCann: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit that it is perfectly within the rights of the hon. member for Lake Centre to make clear the occasion to which he was referring and to continue discussion of that matter in an orderly fashion.


An hon. Member:: You are all mixed up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If Your Honour refuses to allow the hon. member for Lake Centre to further refer to the matter at all, then I submit that it is an application of the rules which is not apt under the circumstances.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared to listen to the hon. member for Lake Centre -I thought that was what I had done-if he wants to say exactly to what speech of the Minister of Agriculture he is referring, whether it is the speech that was made this afternoon. Apparently that is the one we are concerned about. If the hon. member for Lake Centre is referring to a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago it may be a different proposition.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the reference is to the one made this afternoon, and if the Minister of National Revenue says he was here, it seems to me that the hon. member for Lake Centre must accept the statement.
In reply to an implication which I rather gathered was contained in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), may I say that there is nothing at issue as to the references which the hon. member for Lake Centre might make to the understanding of the Minister of National Revenue of the answer of the Minister of Agriculture. He can talk about that. He can criticize the interpretation, or question whether the Minister of National Revenue heard correctly. He can contradict that. But TMr. Fulton.]

what he cannot contradict or what he must accept is the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue that he was here during the time the Minister of Agriculture spoke this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason at all for us to be in disagreement about this matter. The Minister of National Revenue says he was in the house when the Minister of Agriculture was making his speech-


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I have no argument about that. What I am talking about is the occasion when the questioning took place with regard to the Minister of Agriculture, and when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was speaking, in the course of which the minister was not in his seat in the house.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Wait a minute.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member said I was not in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us clear the matter up. Will the minister state where he was?


James Joseph McCann: I said I was in the chamber all the time during which the Minister of Agriculture was speaking, that I spent my afternoon in the house. I was here when he started and when he finished; and on one occasion I was behind the curtain. A gentleman wanted to see me. I was here during all of his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does that not indicate exactly the foundation for the statement I made?


James Joseph McCann: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not television and I cannot see my hon. friend when he is behind the curtain while at the same time saying that he is in the house. That is exactly the point.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The hon. member backs out gracefully.


James Joseph McCann: There is no disagreement; go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: We are all in agreement. The minister was here, but he' was behind the curtain and I did not know he was there.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Don't spoil your retreat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope that clears up this situation.
I was dealing particularly with the speech of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon.

As he reviewed the history of this project throughout the years he said, among other things, that never had he promised to proceed with this project. I have before me the report of a speech made by him on June 23, 1949, as contained in the Regina Leader-Post. In the report of this speech delivered at Lemberg on that date-which Your Honour will remember was a few days before the election -the following appears:
The South Saskatchewan project would provide power and encourage building of industries in small towns, provide an incentive for young people to stay in this province. "I think we have made a fairly good start now," said Mr. Gardiner; "send us back to complete the job."
Since that promise was given, what has been done to finish the job? In 1948 the question arose in the house as to the need of money for the purpose of proceeding with the investigation into the feasibility of the project. In 1949 the matter came before the house following the election of that year, and at page 772 of Hansard the following appears:
If the South Saskatchewan river project was built under conditions that existed some three or four years ago it would cost in the neighbourhood of $60 million.
That is the Minister of Agriculture speaking. Then:


Percy Ellis Wright: What would it cost today?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it had to be built under conditions as they are today that amount would be increased by perhaps $10 million or maybe a little more. Eut it would be absolutely impossible to construct the South Saskatchewan river project in less than ten years. The total expenditure required would be averaged out over that period of time at somewhere between $6 million and $8 million per year.
Then again, a little later on, at page 773-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is at the time my friends over here were accusing me of not going to build it at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; that is correct. As reported at page 773 of Hansard the minister said:
Members of the committee and of the house asked the same questions then-
That is when the estimates were up for consideration.
-as are being asked now and tried to force the government to take the position that we were going to proceed with construction. We said that it was necessary to spend another $2 million before we could make a definite decision on the question whether we should proceed with construction.
That promise was unqualified. Parliament voted that money. It was expended. This was in October, 1949. The expenditure was made and the P.F.R.A. engineers determined the feasibility of this project; and from then on every type of roadblock has been thrown in the way of the project.
South Saskatchewan River Project
Then in 1951 the matter came up for consideration again. It came before the house, and at that time there were some references to the promises that had been made and in particular to the promises made in the Rosthern by-election, which goes back to 1948. On October 22, 1948, Mr. Tucker, who is now leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, spoke on this subject and said:
He added, "You certainly won't get anywhere by sending C.C.F.ers to Ottawa: the election of Makaroff would be tantamount to repudiation of the great scheme."
Mr. Makaroff was a C.C.F. candidate. I continue:
"We have now reached the stage where public opinion will have to be mobilized behind the project to help obtain the passage through parliament of the necessary funds." Mr. Tucker continued, "it is imperative for the people of Rosthern to send Mr. Boucher to Ottawa to help Mr. Gardiner in his fight for it."


Douglas Scott Harkness: No politics in it.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I have heard nothing from Mr. Boucher on that subject lately. He was sent down here for the purpose of showing parliament that this scheme had to be proceeded with. Then came 1951, and in giving his support to this proposition the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said at page 938 of Hansard:
1 was convinced before we started that we ought to find something that would be absolutely satisfactory. I have been trying to find it for the past sixteen years, and personally I am satisfied it has been found. But I am quite sure that every member of this house would agree that when it comes to proposing to spend $68 million out of the treasury of Canada we should at least ask three men who are experts to examine the records upon which I have based my opinion, and upon which others have based theirs, and to say whether or not they agree with it.
When the commission was set up, its purpose was to examine the reports and ascertain whether or not the engineers and the officials of P.F.R.A. had come to a proper decision. Is there any word in the English language, Mr. Speaker, that will describe what actually happened? With a commission set up for the purpose of examining what had or had not been done by the officials of P.F.R.A. over the years, we have something that is almost impossible to understand. As I remember it the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day the reason we did not have the P.F.R.A. officials appear before the commission was that these men were government officials and they did not want to place them in a position of having to make recommendations to the government as to what should be done.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: If the hon. member would permit me; I am sure he wants to be fair, and that is not all I said. I said that the

South Saskatchewan River Project commissioners had available to them all the information that had been gathered by the P.F.R.A. officials; that what we wanted from the commissioners was further information and not opinions of our own officials and that we did not think it would be proper to have them go and express their opinions when we were asking this commission to give us further information and to give us their opinions so that we might form our own.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has set out what he said on that occasion in summary form. In view of the fact that he is here on this occasion I should like him to answer this question. In view of the fact that we in western Canada and in the province of Saskatchewan are united in regard to the feasibility of this project and the necessity of going ahead with it, may I bring to his attention the demand of the people in western Canada in that regard and ask him now whether or not, having regard to the report which has been before us, he intends through his government and with his government to give us that which we ask for?


Mr. St. Laurent:: The house is not in committee, Mr. Speaker, and it is quite irregular to ask questions; but I would not like to have the hon. gentleman go out and say that he had asked me a question and I failed to answer him. If the house will give me unanimous consent to answer I shall be glad to do so.


Some hon. Members:: You have it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government is not prepared to go ahead, without further information, to recommend to parliament the expenditure of the amounts estimated by the commissioners, and will not take it upon itself to do that until it has further information.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the further information?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The further information is as to whether or not this is the best use to be made of that great national asset. Personally I think that it is a good use to be made of it, and if I can be convinced to the extent where I can honestly say that I believe it to be the best, I will recommend to my colleagues to make the recommendation to parliament. But I want to be sure that if this asset is used in this way it will not be apparent shortly afterward that there was a better use to which it should have been put.


John George Diefenbaker: What proof is required for that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, the commissioners say there has not yet been sufficient investigation to enable them to say that this is the best use. I do not know of any better use. But they suggest-and they are experts, I am not-that that further information is required to reach a positive opinion as to whether or not that is the best use. I think it would be a good use. I am not frightened at the cost. We anticipated that in the years 1952 and 1953 the cost would necessarily be higher than what had been estimated a few years ago. And the part of the cost that would be an expense to the federal treasury is nothing of the order of $250 million. The $250 million is made up of some elements which would not be at the expense of the federal treasury. Nevertheless the project is one of great magnitude, and it is one that will have to be accepted by the whole of Canada as a good, reasonable project to undertake. Had there not been the suggestion in the report that it was quite possible there might be a better use to be made of that great national asset I would have continued in the opinion that the creation of that body of water in the province of Saskatchewan would be a magnificent thing, and that the indirect, not the direct returns-the direct returns you cannot calculate mathematically -would be a permanent addition to the capital value of this great country of ours.


John George Diefenbaker: We are making advances as we proceed, Mr. Speaker. That is a long way farther than the Prime Minister or anyone connected with the government has gone previously; and before I deal with what he had to say-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That, Mr. Speaker, is not quite fair. I made that statement in the province of Saskatchewan in 1949, before the dissolution of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister spoke in Saskatoon in 1949, and in every sentence he uttered he gave complete approval to the proposition and left the indication with the people of Saskatchewan that if his party were returned the project would be proceeded with.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; that is quite wrong. I will not at this time, any more than I did at that time, make representations that I do not firmly believe in.


John George Diefenbaker: I say that the Prime Minister in 1949 offered only one veto, and that was the fear that Saskatoon would suffer what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, the only difference being that in one case it was going to be by water and in the other case by fire. In 1949 the Prime Minister left the

impression-and every Liberal candidate in Saskatchewan was pledged and pledged the government-that this proposition would be gone ahead with.
Finally, after the election was over, the procrastination commenced. First they set up the water board. They did not know whether or not the water could be properly allocated as between the provinces. Having set up the water board, the next point raised was that the responsibility for irrigation should rest on the province. The attitude of the government was that as far as irrigation was concerned that responsibility would have to be accepted by the province of Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan accepted that responsibility.
The next escape hatch was to set up a royal commission. When, over and over again, I asked in the house whether, if the royal commission report was favourable, the work would be proceeded with, the answer invariably was the same, that no such binding undertaking would be given. I could quote repetitious cases over and over again of statements in that regard.
And now we come to 1953. After the royal commission has sat for over a year, and we are unable to have any kind of assurance, there is to be some other investigation. First it was going to be proceeded with, we were told, in 1948, provided the feasibility were determined by P.F.R.A. They determined that.
Only a few moments ago the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said I had misquoted what he had said regarding the use of officials of P.F.R.A. I made the statement that the Prime Minister left the impression by his answer and actually said, in effect, that the reason these P.F.R.A. officials were not before the royal commission, and their report examined by the royal commission, was because of 'the danger that they, being civil servants, would be in the position of advising the government, of which they are the servants.
Well, I was not very far out in my interpretation of the answer given by the Prime Minister as it appears at page 1399 of Hansard for January 28, 1953, where the Prime Minister said:
This commission was established to get information which the government did not already have and to make recommendations to it. As the commissioners had access to all the records and technical advice of the P.F.R.A., it was not necessary for them to have formal appearances by federal officials at public hearings. The government shared this view and gave this opinion to the officials of the P.F.R.A.
In reaching that conclusion, the government had in mind the fact that it would not be fair to place civil servants in a false position by requiring them
South Saskatchewan River Project to appear publicly and express opinions on matters on which the Minister of Agriculture and the government as a whole had subsequently to reach decisions.
And that is exactly, in effect, what I said a while ago.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is in effect what the hon. member said. But it is not in effect the whole of what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read every part of the discussion relative to civil servants in the answer the Prime Minister gave on that occasion. I, for one, for the life of me cannot understand why, over and over again, as we approach each election-1945, 1949 and 1953-we always find ourselves in the position of having this project just around the corner. Surely there is enough information for the government as to the feasibility. The location of the dam was finally determined in 1949 or 1950. Those of us in the province of Saskatchewan know what great benefits would flow from this development. Throughout the years we have given support to people in other parts of Canada in connection with projects national in scope that, through the years, will shape a prosperity hitherto not known, and will pay dividends in national development the like of which today we can only envisage.
We want this done. We want this work proceeded with. We have been promised it through the years. It has been dangled at each election as a bait, and after each election it has been withdrawn by postponement, by procrastination, by roadblocks and other interference.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) used words that can only be interpreted to mean that the cabinet has not yet made any decision, as the matter has not been presented to them. I say that surely, after all these years, the cabinet knows and envisages the situation as it is. I think the time has come to take drastic action. In 1949, in order to demand their rights, the farmers of western Canada had to send a delegation to Ottawa. I think the time has come, in the national interest, when representatives from Saskatchewan, not only of the association connected with the project itself but of municipalities and rural areas throughout central Saskatchewan, will have to come in a delegation to parliament. They will have to send here a delegation charged with placing before the cabinet that about which not only the Minister of Agriculture but also members from Saskatchewan supporting the government have not as yet been able to impress the cabinet.
After all this is something that in the years ahead spells the difference between pros-

South Saskatchewan River Project perity and something much less than that. It means that we will not revert to the days of the thirties and earlier, when drought struck us as it periodically did on those western plains.
This project will take ten years to build. Surely we should not continue to procrastinate, to advance excuses, and to make political bait out of it at each election. So far as this party is concerned, throughout the years we have supported this project. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) made that clear in the month of March, when he charged me with the responsibility of placing our support behind it from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And having that support from the opposition, and realizing the need for it-because we have spoken for it not only outside the house but inside-we are going to vote for it on this occasion.
Again we ask, in order to bring this matter before the cabinet and so there will be a realization of the unity of Saskatchewan behind this, that members from Saskatchewan, whatever their party may be, join us in this effort. Let us show that we have not arrived yet at a condition of affairs in the House of Commons where members who believe in the necessity of the work being done cannot stand and be counted on this, the greatest opportunity that has ever come to members believing the need is great, place ment of the day, "This is what we are asking for and what the people of Saskatchewan are asking for".
Mr. Speaker, parliament only speaks when members, believing the need is great, place aside every other consideration for the public good. I make a special appeal, as I said in the beginning, for a united Saskatchewan, and for the support of Saskatchewan Liberal members at this time to do that which, over the years, they have advocated, and that which they are advocating today in their radio speeches. It is not the voice outside of parliament that counts; it is the vote in parliament that counts.


James Garfield Gardiner: In checking my own Hansard I have just come across the statement to which the hon. member has just referred. Hansard records this:


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said that I have not carried the subject to the cabinet. I said that the subject has not been discussed by the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: It was earlier than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the occasion the Leader of the Opposition was asking me about.


John George Diefenbaker: No, go back farther.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend said that was the occasion. I have just read what Hansard records me as having said.


Mr. G. M. Ferrie (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that this South Saskatchewan dam has got into the state it has, as a political issue. We as members from Saskatchewan are just as enthusiastic, I am sure, and have been working just as hard in trying to establish our rights to this dam as has the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He has made certain statements here today and I am sure the people of Saskatchewan will be sorry that he went as far as he did. Even one of his supporters in Saskatoon made a statement that was detrimental to him and us. He said that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot quote the nonsense of some imaginary person; you must make it your own nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Is it worrying you a little bit?


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot quote outside people.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The hon. member for Lake Centre said to one of his supporters, a Mr. Hamilton, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and some of the cabinet were against and opposed to the South Saskatchewan dam. This was not a right and proper thing to do. The same thing is happening to us right now. As far as we are concerned, he wants us to get up and vote. Let him withdraw his amendment and come with us in a body to try to persuade the people of Canada.
You do not need to persuade Saskatchewan that they want the dam. We are trying to persuade the people of eastern Canada. How many homes have you been into? How many offices have you been into? Have you been doing what we have been doing, trying to persuade these people that we need the dam? Has the C.C.F. party been around this parliament trying to persuade members to give us support? Have you done that? No, we are the boys who are doing that.


An hon. Member:: How many homes have you been in?


An hon. Member:: Have you convinced one man?


An hon. Member:: You are just a rubber stamp.	[DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: My door is always open and you have not been to see me.


George Harris Hees: Come and call.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As far as I am concerned and as far as the Tory party is concerned, this is a straight political issue. When the time comes I am sure the people of the province of

Saskatchewan will show these gentlemen to my left what they need. When we ask for unity in connection with a proposition we do it because we know it is a good thing and we want to sell it. We have to sell it to the people. Let me tell my hon. friends from down in Toronto-


An hon. Member:: They want to irritate before they irrigate.


George Harris Hees: How are you voting?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As far as I am concerned I am not going to vote for the subamendment and I am not going to vote for the amendment. As most of you have heard, we have a dry belt in Saskatchewan. We have a proposition that we think has been sold over a period of years to people in our part of Canada. We believe the time has come when the dam should be built. We believe that over a period of years it will pay for itself through the revenue that will be returned to the people of Canada.
Any farmer who happens to have land along the 400 miles of the shore line of that lake will be able to irrigate anywhere from 50 to 100 acres. What will they do? They will build up herds of livestock because they will be able to grow feed. In western Canada we are all anxious to have feed, especially those who live in the dried-out areas. When you produce livestock and livestock products they will be marketed throughout Canada. As our population grows we will be able to utilize this irrigated land.
I am not going to go into the details of what the land will produce, but I should like to say a few words with regard to the report of this commission. When the people in eastern Canada look at the report and see that $250 million may have to be spent in central Saskatchewan, they naturally come to the conclusion that that is a lot of money. If a report were to come out that the St. Lawrence development was to cost half a billion dollars, there would be a hubbub and cry all over eastern Canada. But that half billion dollars would not be spent in one year; it might take ten, fifteen or twenty years to spend it.
The same thing is true of the South Saskatchewan water development scheme. We are not asking that all this money be spent on this dam in one year, we are asking that it be spent over a period of years. If it takes six, eight or ten years to spend $100 million that is at the rate of $8 or $10 million a year. That is not asking for too much from the people of Canada in order to develop this area.
68108-113J
South Saskatchewan River Project
You may say that the St. Lawrence waterway will pay for itself. We agree, and we on the prairies will help to pay for it. We are producers in western Canada; we are pioneers. We ask the people of eastern Canada to help us pioneer this great project. As far as we are concerned this project is something that is necessary. This lake in the centre of the province of Saskatchewan is something we need. We need it for irrigation and for power.
As far as my constituency is concerned, the irrigation will do us no good but it will do Canada good. If we can get this power development started it will naturally provide cheaper power, and we in the northeastern part of the province of Saskatchewan are interested in that. Our power costs are very high and we need cheaper power. So far as land is concerned, I want to say that in my constituency more land could be put under cultivation for a quarter of the money that will be spent on that project, but we are willing to go along and support this great scheme as a national project. I want to ask people in eastern Canada and west of the Rockies to give us all the support-


George Harris Hees: We are all for it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: -they possibly can. You are only a part of Canada. You think you are the whole, but you are not.


George Harris Hees: We are giving you support.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: We want the support of the common people. We want to show members of the house that the project is sound, so they can go home and tell their people that we have introduced a sound project and are trying to sell something that is sound.


John George Diefenbaker: Whom are you trying to sell?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: We are trying to sell it to the people of Canada, and more especially the people of eastern Canada.


George Harris Hees: How are you going to vote?


An hon. Member:: Party politics.


George Harris Hees: We are all for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: There are a lot of people in Canada and there are a lot of them in this house, some of them on the Tory side and some on the C.C.F. side, who are not satisfied with this project.


John George Diefenbaker: There is not one on the Conservative side.


George Harris Hees: Not one on the Conservative side.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: This project is something Saskatchewan needs. This is something-
1774	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project


George Harris Hees: Then vote for it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You be quiet.


George Harris Hees: How are you voting?


An hon. Member:: It is not going to get you
any votes in Broadview.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Get up and talk.


George Harris Hees: How are you going to vote?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to get over is that we as members from the province of Saskatchewan-


An hon. Member:: Are you for it or
against it?


George Harris Hees: Are you with us or against us? We are all for it. How about you?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It might be opportune for me to say that the member who has the floor must not be interrupted, and I might add that hon. members should not interrupt in this manner.


Mr. Aylesworth:: We are just trying to help him.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: We members from Saskatchewan-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Wear your colours.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: -are doing exactly what we think is the right and proper thing to do, turning down these two amendments.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Because they are not right, they are not proper and they are moved for one purpose and one purpose only, to embarrass the rest of the members from the province of Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us this afternoon that the South Saskatchewan river project, and particularly the South Saskatchewan dam, had not been discussed in the cabinet, I confess that I could hardly believe it. But tonight, after listening to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) which he interjected during the course of the speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am inclined to believe that at least there has not been sufficient discussion of this matter in the cabinet itself. As a matter of fact, if there has been discussion they do not seem to have cleared with each other so as to be able to say the same thing on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Minister of Agriculture tried to suggest this afternoon that the item in the estimates
[Mr. Ferried

is one which could be used, if the cabinet so decided, to go ahead with the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. Certainly that was an attempt on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to say that the hope which the people of Saskatchewan have that this dam will be built is one they can count on being fulfilled in the not far distant future. But tonight the Prime Minister stands up and says in clear-cut language that in the light of the figures now before him-* I do not know whether or not they are before the cabinet but they are before him-in this latest report he is not now prepared to recommend to the cabinet the vote of the necessary money to go ahead with this project.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, I should like to say that I have never said any such thing as my hon. friend has just tried to indicate. I have never said any such thing at all. I have never said anything different from what the Prime Minister said. The matter has not yet been discussed with the government; therefore I am not in a position to say that it is going to be done, and I have not made any suggestion that it is going to be done, either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are agreed on one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that apparently the matter has not been discussed in the cabinet. As I say, this afternoon I could hardly believe it, but tonight I do. The Minister of Agriculture has completely missed the point I was trying to make.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not missed it.


George James McIlraith: No, he did not miss it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister said tonight that in the light of the figures as to cost that have been laid before us in the royal commission report he, the Prime Minister, is not prepared to recommend the vote of the necessary moneys to go ahead with the building of the dam. But this afternoon-does someone object? Is that not what the Prime Minister said?.


James Garfield Gardiner: I object, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was talking about this present moment. I was talking about this present moment too, this afternoon, but neither one of us has said what the final decision is going to be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think somebody should adjourn this debate so the cabinet can go out and hold a meeting. The Minister of Agriculture was discussing this matter this afternoon, and at one point he was talking about Nova Scotia. He said when he is down in Nova Scotia he is not sure which way he

is going. It is not only in Nova Scotia that he finds himself in that predicament.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some people who do not admit that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture tried to say that the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre is not properly drawn because it says there is no item in the estimates for the South Saskatchewan river project. When the hon. member for Lake Centre, quite properly in my view, supported his position by saying that the item in the estimates is not for the building of the dam the Minister of Agriculture came back and said that the amount of money that is there does not matter. We can do it, he said-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -just as well on $500,000 as we can on a larger amount if we decide to do it. I submit to the judgment of the house that if that was not an attempt to suggest to the house that in the view of the Minister of Agriculture there was hope that the dam would be built, then no one knows what it was.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a clear difference of viewpoint, from that of the Prime Minister, expressed with regard to this matter by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon. Out of his concern across the years for the dam he still wants to be on its side as something that is to be done soon. On the other hand we have the Prime Minister tonight saying that in the light of present cost figures he, the Prime Minister, is not prepared at the present time to recommend that that much money be voted.
Now, growing out of that difference between the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister there arises another difference, namely as to the reason Liberal members are putting forward to explain why they plan to vote against the amendment and the subamendment which we now have before the house.


An hon. Member:: Anybody would vote against you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister's reason for opposing the amendment and the subamendment is quite clear, and he made it very clear tonight. I want to be fair to him. He says that it would be for the good of Canada as a whole to have this project but, in the light of the information and figures contained in the report of the royal commission, he feels that he cannot make the recommendation for the building of the dam at the present time. That seems to imply that
South Saskatchewan River Project there will have to be more investigations and more inquiries to decide which of the inquiries is the correct one. There is no telling how long this will go on, but it is quite clear that at the present moment the Prime Minister says that he is not prepared to vote for immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. So I suggest that if the Prime Minister, as I assume he will, votes against the subamendment and the amendment, he is doing so for a clear-cut reason. It is because he at this moment is not in favour of going ahead with the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam.
The Minister of Agriculture is not so clear-cut. He is not so forthright, and he does not tell us that that is the reason for his anticipated negative vote on the amendment and the subamendment. Rather, he finds other reasons. For one, he suggests that the amendment is not properly drawn because it refers to nothing being in the estimates for the construction of the dam. I think that objection has already been disposed of, because it is pretty clear that there is not enough money in the estimates for the construction of the dam; and even if the Minister of Agriculture wants to contend that it is possible to start the dam on the basis of that $500,000 vote he has been vetoed on it tonight by the Prime Minister, who says that in the light of the latest South Saskatchewan river report he is not prepared to recommend voting the necessary money at the present time.
Another argument which the Minister of Agriculture uses is that this is a want of confidence motion as far as the government is concerned. I wish to deal with that question in a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, but before I do so it seems to me that every time a Saskatchewan Liberal gets up and uses that excuse for not voting for the amendment or the subamendment he is merely saying, and he is shouting it from the housetops, that a vote of confidence in this Liberal government is more important to him than getting the dam for the people of Saskatchewan. That is the issue as far as they are concerned and because that is the issue the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) said a moment ago that to him and to his fellow Saskatchewan Liberals the whole purpose of the amendment and subamendment seemed to be just to embarrass them.
Well, that may be imputing motives that are not correct but at least they are admitting how they feel about it, namely that they are embarrassed by the fact that they are called upon to choose between voting confidence in their precious Liberal government and voting for the dam which they say they want, and which they know the people

South Saskatchewan River Project of Saskatchewan want, and which the rest of us feel would be for the good of all Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals from Saskatchewan must not expect all of us in this house to fall for the idea that there is a dilemma and that they have to choose between one course and the other-either to vote for the dam or to vote for the government-* and one must be careful not to get that word mixed and use it as an adjective instead of as a noun in that particular context. May I remind hon. members again of what happened in the House of Commons on August 27, 1946. I believe I hear the voice of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott).


Mr. Sinnott:: No, you don't.


James Joseph McCann: He never opened his mouth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I thought I did and I hear it now. At any rate, the same hon. member for Springfield played an important part in the incident on August 27, 1946, to which I now refer. That was an occasion when from this group we moved an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply. Procedurally we were in exactly the same position we are in now. It was a motion to go into supply and an amendment was moved. That amendment had to do with the continuing of one of the subsidies on milk. What happened on that occasion? I think the first Liberal member to stand up and express support for that proposition was the hon. member for Springfield. Other Liberal members, such as the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) also indicated their support. Others who had not yet spoken also let it be known that they too were going to speak in favour of the amendment to the motion to go into supply which was moved from this group.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I rise on a question of personal privilege. At least when I stand up and vote I mean what I say.


Hazen Robert Argue: You talk with your vote. Sinnott for Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to know that is the way the member for Springfield feels with regard to the incident in 1946, and I accept his word on it without question. The point is that on that occasion he spoke for our amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply and he voted for it when the time came to record the opinion of the members of this house.
As a result of that considerable body of opinion being expressed on the government side, led in this instance by the member for Springfield and supported by the member for


Fraser Valley and by the only private member from Saskatchewan at that time, Mr. Walter Tucker, the government took quite a different stand from that which is being taken in this debate. On that occasion the present Prime Minister, who was then acting prime minister in the absence of Mr. King, did his best to persuade the house to allow the amendment to be withdrawn on the assurance that the government would give consideration to the matter. We were not prepared to withdraw the amendment, so a little later the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who was then the minister of reconstruction and supply, got up and said as recorded on page 5431 of Hansard:
Nevertheless the government has no objection to an expression of opinion from the members of the house. I suggest that the vote should be a free expression regardless of party.
He went on to say:
The difficulty of obtaining the expression arises from the form of the amendment, which in itself denies the right of the house to move into committee of supply at this time. However, Mr. Speaker, I would call to your attention article 489 of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
When an amendment has been adopted to the motion for the house to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, it may be forthwith moved that the house resolve itself into such committee immediately or on a future day.
Immediately after quoting that rule from Beauchesne the then minister of reconstruction and supply said:
Therefore I should like to serve notice that if this vote carries the government will immediately move that the house go into committee of supply this day. I believe that that procedure is consistent with the rules, and if there can be general agreement on that point the work of the house can be facilitated and the objective of hon. members attained.
Well, the result was that not only courageous members, like the hon. member for Springfield and the hon. member for Fraser Valley and others who had already indicated their support, voted for our amendment, but when the vote was called at least twenty Liberal members joined with most of those on the opposition side of the house. The result was that the amendment to the motion to go into supply was carried by a vote of 69 to 41.
Was it a vote of [DOT] non-confidence in the government? No. That had already been made clear by the announcement of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. As a result of his announcement, and as a result of the notice he had given, immediately after that amendment had been carried and had thus became an expression of opinion of the house, the present Prime Minister got up and moved "that the house do now go into committee of supply". About half

a column down in Hansard that motion was agreed to and the house went into committee of supply and went on with its business.
In other words, the government was not defeated. There was no suggestion of nonconfidence having been recorded by the house. Rather the house was given an opportunity to express its opinion on the question of continuing the milk subsidy, without defeating the government. But why was it given that opportunity? Because Liberal members had made it clear that they wanted that opportunity. What has happened this time? Not a single Liberal member has asked for a free vote on the question. I hope the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) may do so. I understand that he has been trying to get the floor.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Give him a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe the hon. member for Fraser Valley will do so. They gave a courageous lead to their fellow Liberals back in 1946. I hope they will give a courageous lead this time if it is not too late, because a number of Liberals have stood up and said they are going to vote against the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask if the hon gentleman now wants' the same results that occurred then?


An hon. Member:: That is a good question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am amazed that the
Minister of Agriculture goes out of his way to draw attention to the fact that after the house expressed its opinion as to what should be done, the cabinet did not give effect to that opinion. It is not the first time the government has done that. I could remind him of several other instances. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is not now suggesting-of all things to come from him-that if the house were to pass, by a majority vote, its expression of opinion that the dam should be built, the government would treat that expression of opinion in the way it treated the milk subsidy motion, my motion for the removal of the 4 per cent floor on medical expenses in relation to income tax, and other such items across the years.
Despite the fact that I have been amazed a number of times today at things the Minister of Agriculture has said, I am more than startled that he would make this interjection at this point. Since he says he is for the dam, I suggest that he is the minister who should be exceedingly glad to have a vote of that kind so he could go to the cabinet and not only carry to them the question of the South Saskatchewan dam, but say: "Here, I have behind me the vote of a majority of
South Saskatchewan River Project the members of the House of Commons; it is time that you fellows in the cabinet paid some attention to this proposition".


James Garfield Gardiner: I am only suggesting that my hon. friend is talking now in the very opposite direction to that in which he talked on every previous occasion he brought this matter before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture is talking about. Is he talking about the subject matter of the dam or is he talking about a procedural point?


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or does he know what he is talking about?


An hon. Member:: Do you know what you are talking about?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear from precedent and from the rules that if the members of this house on the government side want a free vote on this question, they can have it. All they have to do is make the fact known with sufficient clarity that the government will be in the same position as in 1946, so that a responsible minister can make the same announcement and give the same notice to Your Honour. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that not only are the Liberal members from Saskatchewan using this excuse for voting against the motion but that they are not even asking for the right to have, on this dam, a free vote which they asked for with respect to the milk subsidy in 1946.
I would think that to the Saskatchewan Liberal members this question of the dam would be more important than was the milk subsidy question in 1946, even as I should think it would be more important to them than voting confidence in the government at the present time.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, many amazing things have come out today. It was rather startling that the Minister of Agriculture told us so much about what goes on in cabinet, or about what does not go on. I really thought that things that happen within the meetings of the cabinet council were supposed to be secret. Yet we now know that it was a great many years before that other proposition was brought to a head in cabinet. We now know that although the minister may have taken this question to cabinet-we do not know how many times-it still has not been discussed.
That is hard to believe when one realizes that some decision must have been made with
1778	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project respect to the setting up of the royal commission. It is hard to believe also when you realize that there must have been approval of the items that have been put in the estimates from time to time. But apparently, judging from what has been said, the matter has not been discussed. If that is the case, it is all the more reason why this house should record a strong vote in favour of this proposition so the cabinet will realize that it is time to discuss this matter.
I am prepared to leave it at that and to express the hope that the hon. member for Springfield, who gave such a strong lead- and it was a really courageous lead-to the members of his party in 1946, will do it again this time and that there will yet be a request to the government, which I hope the government will answer, for a free vote on this question. It is not "either/or". It is not "either vote for the dam or vote for the government". It is perfectly possible, by rule and by precedent, to have both votes. It is possible to have in the first place a vote on the question of the dam. Let us have an affirmative vote on that question. Then after that is out of the way there can be a vote on the question of going into supply. That vote too can be in the affirmative, the house can get on with its business, and the Minister of Agriculture can have real backing to take with him to the next meeting of the cabinet, which I suggest should be tonight.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-or is it off centre?-may I say that when this matter comes before the house for a vote, the hon. member for Springfield will use his own conscience and vote accordingly; he will not be dictated to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Nor will he vote as did the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), who was almost read out of his party.
I am glad to take advantage of this opportunity to speak so soon after the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who worked himself up into a frenzy of hysteria in order to attain his particular political ambition. His theme was more or less political irritation rather than land irrigation.
I am going to read, from the South Saskatchewan river report, the findings and recommendations on page 6. I am going to read just one paragraph which will substantiate what the government has been doing:
1. The commission finds that at present the economic returns to the Canadian people on the mvestment in the proposed South Saskatchewan
Mr. Knowles.]

river project (central Saskatchewan development) are not commensurate with the cost thereof; though the project would yield social returns which, while they cannot be measured for the purpose of this report, would be of great value to the region in which it is situated.
2. The commission recommends that, when the time comes that the project represents the then best use of water for irrigation, the present finding should be reviewed in the light of changing conditions.
I think the government in its wisdom has taken great precautions in going ahead with this land irrigation scheme which is estimated to cost anywhere from $100 million to $350 million. If they did not have the backing of every party in this house they would be accused later on of making a terrible mistake. Therefore I think the government are wise in taking these steps to make sure that every hon. member is behind this huge proposition before that large amount of money is spent.
At present there are large surpluses of wheat in Canada, and there is no shortage of food. There is no great hurry for such a project at this time. However, like any forward-looking Canadian, I certainly would not oppose a project which would be beneficial to Saskatchewan and therefore be of help to the rest of Canada. I do not pretend to be-


George Harris Hees: A candidate at the next election.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I do not pretend to be a member of the legal profession; neither do I pretend to have a monopoly of brains, as some other people in this house do, but I know that if we intend to spend a large amount of money-as I have said, anywhere from $100 million to $350 million-before that is done it should receive the careful consideration of any government regardless of its political faith.
I am sure Canadians as a whole will realize that it is the duty of the official opposition to guard the safety of the Canadian public's dollar. But as we have listened to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and several other members of the Conservative party we gather that it is politically expedient to do this work in order that one or two members of the Conservative party may be returned from Saskatchewan. I take the same attitude that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has taken, namely that this should not be made a political football. It should be gone ahead with on its merits, and if a little more time is considered necessary, in the words of the commission, I do not think it is going to hurt it. I do not think a little time will hurt us because time is the essence of everything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the motto of the Liberal party.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If the opposition wish to see this project go through then the less they say at the present time the better. If they leave it in the hands of the good government we have now I think they will be farther ahead.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion I have listened to this afternoon and this evening from the opposition side of the house indicates to me that the South Saskatchewan project, as far as they are concerned, has been relegated to the position of a political football. The two amendments to the motion to go into supply that are now before the house are indicative of that. The movers of those motions propose that we should support their amendments and thereby, as Liberals from Saskatchewan, show our faith in the dam on the South Saskatchewan river. As anyone knows, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a motion to go into supply is made for the purpose of voting money to Her Majesty's government to carry on the work of the government. If the government is defeated on that motion it ceases to be in power and we must have an immediate election.


Some hon. Members:: Are you afraid of that?


John Hornby Harrison: Just a minute; I see in these amendments a double-barrelled gun, as it were. In one case it is supposed to put the Liberal members from Saskatchewan on their mettle and at a disadvantage. On the other hand, if the amendment is adopted it puts the government out of office. If history tells us anything, it tells us that all major projects in this country have been dealt with and put into effect by this government. I am not much interested in a project that would put this government out of office and would put some other one in that we would have to depend on to put the South Saskatchewan river project into effect.
In all the speeches so far from the other side of the house I have not heard anything to bolster the argument for a South Saskatchewan dam. We have a report here, which fortunately has not been stolen, that casts a lot of doubt on the advisability of the South Saskatchewan project as an economic proposition. I would think hon. members opposite could make better use of their talents, if they are honestly in favour of this dam and not in embarrassing Liberals-which I can assure them they are not doing-by trying 68108-114
South Saskatchewan River Project to balance up some of the criticism that is to be found in this report.
I gathered from the minister's remarks this afternoon and from some other information I have obtained that it would be appropriate to sell this project to the people of Canada. When the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) dealt with that angle of the proposition my hon. friends laughed, but they know as well as anybody that we have to sell this proposition to the people of Canada on an economic basis. This is one possible way of doing it. If you take the figures the minister gave this afternoon you will find that we have paid out a lot of money in Saskatchewan by way of rehabilitation in the dried-out period, that bad economic time we went through, on account of the dry years. We are pouring a lot of money into a pail that perhaps has a hole in the bottom.
Just what have we spent in rehabilitating the west that could be used to put this proposition on an economic basis, a proposition that is going to pay for itself? We have to do that or show the people of Canada that they are going to save some money by putting in the dam. I think we can show them that we are going to save some money. We have spent $135 million in prairie farm assistance payments, of which the farmer has paid some $52 million, leaving $83 million that the federal government has put out in prairie farm assistance. We have spent $168 million in direct relief in the west in the dried-out period. We have spent another $39 million on prairie farm rehabilitation in small projects; we have spent a further $22 million on large projects such as the St. Mary dam and the Bow river project, the last mostly in Alberta. In all that is $312 million that we have spent on rehabilitation. You would not have to dig very far to find out that we have spent more than that. If we are to spend $312 million every fifteen or twenty years in rehabilitation would it not be better to put a lake in that dry area and irrigate, as this South Saskatchewan project calls for?
I do not know why I should be talking for the province of Saskatchewan, particularly as I happen to be in a section where we are not lacking water. I just happened to bring down a few maps of some parts of my riding. These are air maps. As hon. members can see, there is just about as much water in this area as there is land. Each one of these areas is a small portion of the riding. As you go through this country you see that there is plenty of water. In fact there is more water in my riding than will fill this

South Saskatchewan River Project particular project a thousand times; therefore we are not exactly dry in some parts of Saskatchewan.
This particular project will have no impact upon the riding of Meadow Lake, except that we may get some power from it. It is odd that these amendments should have been moved by members of opposition groups from Saskatchewan, and it is worthy of note that there has not been any opposition shown by the group from Alberta. They are not interested in playing politics with this issue, because they have had some irrigation in their province and they know the value of it. We are thankful to them for the way they have approached this matter.
I think there is some difference of opinion between the people of Saskatchewan and those of Alberta as to who should have most of the water. That is only natural. It is natural to suppose that they want to keep in Alberta as much of the water as they possibly can. They know the value of it, just as we do. But, Mr. Speaker, in the southern part of the province-from which I do not come- they definitely do need this dam. In view of the water we have in my constituency, I am in the same position as someone in the eastern part of Canada who is not directly connected with this project at all.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has said that he has been disappointed in the stand taken by Liberals from Saskatchewan. I can reciprocate his feelings entirely and say that I am disappointed in the action his group are taking in this matter. They are making the South Saskatchewan dam a political football. If that is what they want to do, well and good; but it will not get us a dam. We had better say to the people of Canada that this is an economically sound proposition, and sell it to them on that basis. If it is an economically sound proposition, then it will save that amount of money in the next twenty or thirty years, and we will not have to pour so many millions of dollars into the province.
We will not have to do it all at one time, either. As the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) has pointed out, it will be carried out on a ten-year or twelve-year basis, and would cost about $10 million a year. As members of the house representing the people of Canada we have to show that this is an economically sound proposition. We realize that while hon. members in the opposition were shouting only a short time ago that they are all in favour of this project, the fact is that they still have to go back home and sell it to their constituents. There is no reason why that cannot be done.

I just wish to indicate my position. So far as I am concerned, when my friends opposite move amendments which, if carried, would put the government out of office, I must definitely oppose them. I would not mind if we had an election tomorrow, but I most definitely am opposed to going out in that manner, bowing to a minority which 1 am sure will still be a minority after the next election.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I will have great pleasure in voting against the amendments, especially in the light of the spirit in which they are put forward. If they would accomplish anything toward getting the dam, 1 would be very pleased to support them. But they are not going to accomplish anything. Hon. members know that, and they knew it when the amendments were moved. I will have great pleasure in voting against the amendments on these grounds.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words tonight before ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Move the adjournment. It is ten o'clock.


John James Smith: I will do that when I get ready. I think I should say a few words before the vote is taken on the amendment and the subamendment. The debate started out as a discussion of the dam, and now it has developed into a discussion of the vote.
I want to assure my hon. friends to my left that if I thought for one moment that voting for the amendment or the subamendment would get the dam, there would be no question about how I would vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: It might help.


John James Smith: You say it
might help. Well, we can take a look at that, too. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has indicated that a decision has not been made, and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said the same thing.
I think the government would be as seriously criticized by the opposition-I have said "I think"; I shall correct that by saying "I am sure"-if a decision were reached at this moment by the cabinet, without giving further consideration to the report. I have not much use for commissions because I feel-and I am becoming more convinced all the time-that they are used only for political advantage. That has been my impression since I have come here.


Mr. Cardiff:: Who appointed the commission?


John James Smith: Those of us who are not in favour of the wording of the

commission's report are condemning it. However, it was mentioned tonight-I believe it was the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) who made the suggestion-that members in the opposition, including the hon member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), might very well discuss this matter with the various ministers.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has said that this has not been discussed in cabinet. I take his word for that. But privately I have discussed this matter with each cabinet minister, and tried to suggest the importance of it to our province. As you know, caucus is something that is secret; at the same time I do not think I would be breaking any rule if I were to say that this project was definitely discussed in government caucus. I myself brought it up. What was said I am not privileged to repeat. However, speaking on this subject with the Prime Minister himself, privately, I tried to suggest that, so far as the federal government was concerned, we would be responsible for only part of the dam. The Prime Minister reminded me that although the federal government would be responsible for only part, the government would still be respon-
South Saskatchewan River Project sible for taxes even in the province of Saskatchewan. If a dam is built, two-thirds of the cost being provided by the federal government and one-third by other means, the fact remains that it must be paid for out of taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall continue consideration of the motion to go into supply, and call the following departments: external affairs, transport, labour, agriculture and justice. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs will move to refer his estimates to the standing committee on external affairs. If we dispose of that motion we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) respecting the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, and then Bill No. 46, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


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

Tuesday, February 10, 1953