1953-02-05

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement I would like to make to the house with respect to the disastrous floods in Europe, and I make it because I am sure all hon. members and all those they represent are actively interested in what is taking place and in what is being done in that respect.
I dispatched this morning to the Hon. Leopold Macaulay, chairman of the central council of the Canadian Red Cross at 95 Wellesley Street East, Toronto, the following telegram:
Pursuant to telephone conversation with national commissioner and in accordance with the suggestion which I made in House of Commons on February 3, I am now formally requesting the Canadian Red Cross Society to assist in the establishment of a national European flood relief committee and to act as the administrative arm of the committee.
It is further suggested that any funds contributed for relief purposes be given to the committee and that the Red Cross would act for it in providing transportation and distributing relief supplies through the league of Red Cross Societies (Geneva) and the National Red Cross Societies of Great Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium.
Louis S. St. Laurent
At the suggestion of the national commissioner I sent to each of the provincial premiers the following message:
My dear Premier:
I have today sent the following telegram to the chairman of the central council of the Canadian Red Cross Society.
Then follows the text of the telegram which I have just read and which I will not repeat at this time. After the quotation I added the following:
I have been asked by the society to inquire if you would be willing to serve on the committee which it is proposed to establish.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: To deal with the points raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the order in which he raised them, Mr. Speaker, I would mention first the information he has
given us about the plans being made to facilitate the transmission of assistance from Canada to Great Britain, Holland and Belgium. I feel sure there will be general agreement that the Canadian Red Cross Society is extremely well fitted in every way to assume the responsibility which it is accepting in this case. Happily, that organization continues its activities in peace as in war. Sometimes we are inclined to forget the great services it does perform in times of peace. The regular blood donor services and other activities of that kind have been continuing without interruption throughout the years, so there will be already in existence in every community across Canada local branches of the Red Cross Society which will be able to carry out this work.
As each day goes by, in fact as each hour goes by, the extent of the tragedy becomes more apparent. It is sometimes by a single incident that the nature of the general tragedy may be better understood. I think many hon. members will have had something of the nature of a personal feeling of tragedy when they read today that a mother and children, who had gone back to Holland from Georgetown to visit her parents, had been drowned in the flood.
In the three countries affected the record of the tragedy mounts, and most certainly the members of this house on both sides will welcome the steps that are being taken to make it possible for Canadians to give tangible expression to the deep emotion that has been aroused by these events.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: It is
hardly necessary for me to say that we in this group are particularly glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is taking quick steps to mobilize the sympathies of the people of this country in connection with the relief of those who are suffering from this great catastrophe in Europe. In talking to people I find that many would like to contribute individually. In view of what the Prime Minister has said, I believe the arrangements being made will give them an opportunity of doing that. I believe it is a fine thing that it can be done at this time.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada will find the same satisfaction that I feel in the Prime Minister's announcement of the fact
1634	HOUSE OF
Statue of Sir Robert Borden that the Canadian Red Cross has been designated the agency through which relief shall be forwarded to the unfortunate sufferers in Europe. We want the Prime Minister to know that we are glad steps have been taken quickly, and he is apparently doing an excellent job, in getting relief to these sufferers.


Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I need not say anything, of course, about this suggestion that was made by the Prime Minister. Everybody is and must be in agreement with the broad-minded, national way in which the government and all people in this country are dealing with that tremendous situation that has arisen in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in England at the present time.



SIR ROBERT BORDEN


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of the
cabinet this morning a decision was reached to place in the supplementary estimates to be recommended to parliament for the fiscal year 1953-54 an item to provide for the erection on parliament hill of an appropriate monument in memory of the late Sir Robert Borden.
All hon. members know that 1954 will be the 100th anniversary of Sir Robert Borden's birth, and it was felt that it would be appropriate to recommend commemoration of that centenary by the erection of a permanent memorial to one who was recognized by all Canadians, without any distinction of party affiliation, as one of our great prime ministers. No Canadian who knows anything about the history of the last half century of our country ignores the great part that Sir Robert played during the first great war, and the great part that he always played in the constitutional development of this Canadian nation. It is a fair assumption to make, I think, that every hon. member of the house will be glad to approve of that recommendation. I believe the people of the country as a whole will also be happy if this monument can be unveiled at the time of the centenary celebration of Sir Robert's birth.


George Alexander Drew: Naturally I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and with other members of the house in expressing gratification that steps are being taken to commemorate in the form of a statue the memory of a very great Canadian.
It is only natural that the members of the Conservative party should have a feeling
[Mr. Low.)

of particular pride in regard to this great man; but as the words of the Prime Minister have clearly indicated, this is not a matter of the pride of one party or of the people of any part of Canada, but rather an expression on behalf of all the people of Canada in tribute to a man who played a great part in the development of our country. He assumed responsibilities during the first world war that extended beyond the ordinary responsibilities of a man in that high office. All of us will recall that it was his insistence at the meeting of those who gathered at Versailles that first asserted in definite form Canada's position by his demand that Canada sign, as a sovereign nation, the treaty of peace which formally terminated the first world war.
Statues of this kind are not merely for the purpose of giving satisfaction to those who have some personal recollection of the man himself, or for the satisfaction to his relatives. It is a good thing for every country that there be before the minds of our people, and particularly the young people, evidence of the fact that under our democratic system of state, a great contribution is made to the advancement of the state by those of different parties who share a common affection for the country in which we live.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Coming
from Nova Scotia as I do, it is a special satisfaction to hear the announcement of the Prime Minister that a monument is to be erected to a great Canadian and a great Nova Scotian, Sir Robert Borden. I do not want to detract from his position in any way, but coming from the county of Cumberland in Nova Scotia I should like to point out that another great Nova Scotian, who up to now has had no monument erected to him, is worthy of note. He was prime minister of Canada also. There would have been no Canada as it is today; there would have been no west; there would have been no Canadian Pacific Railway; there would have been no industrial development at a time when there was that industrial development in Canada, were it not for Sir Charles Tupper. I should like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the suggestion that a monument to Sir Charles Tupper has been too long delayed. While I am happy to hear that a monument is to be erected now to that great Nova Scotian, Sir Robert Borden, I ask the government to give consideration to the erection of a monument to that other great Nova Scotian and Canadian.


Angus MacInnis: The
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has referred

to the erection of a memorial to the late Sir Robert Borden. This decision of the cabinet will probably receive more unanimous support than cabinet decisions ordinarily receive. I probably had not changed my political affiliation in the early days of Sir Robert Borden's political activities, but even if I have changed them since that time I can still say that he was a great Canadian and made a great contribution to the development of Canada as a nation. If I may be allowed to mention it, I have recently been reading a memorial to another great Canadian. I am referring to the book by Donald Creighton on Sir John A. Macdonald. It really made me feel proud that I had, not in an intimate way but merely as a young lad, known of this very great Canadian. I believe commendation is due Mr. Creighton, not just for the biography he has written but because in my opinion he has written, for the first time, Canadian history that is really readable and interesting.


Solon Earl Low: With
respect to the announcement in connection with the monument to Sir Robert Borden, I think it is a nice gesture that the Liberal party of Canada has made in deciding to have a monument erected. We certainly support the suggestion and we shall be anxious to see the project completed. Perhaps some of us might attend the unveiling of the monument.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, as a humble member from Nova Scotia I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government on what they are doing toward putting a statue on parliament hill in commemoration of one of the greatest men this country has ever had, and one of our greatest prime ministers. I had the pleasure and, I should say, the honour of reading law in the office of Sir Robert Borden in Halifax. I did not see too much of him at the time but I think he was the kindliest man I ever met in my life.
Some time ago I said a word about Sir Robert Borden in connection with a matter which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) brought before the house today, namely the signing of the treaty of Versailles. The matter of placing monuments on parliament hill in commemoration of our great men is something worthy of our Canadian people. It is something to indicate that after all we have here a united nation irrespective of politics or anything else.
The story of Sir Robert Borden is one well worth reading. I often think that the government of this country, whether it be
Committee on Standing Orders Conservative or Liberal-and I presume that is the only kind we shall ever have-should get somebody to write, in accurate and historic form, the history of the great men who have ruled over the destinies of this country.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman), that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, February 3, be now concurred in.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word or two with respect to this motion. I believe that it asks the house to approve a recommendation of the committee on standing orders that certain requirements be dispensed with so far as a particular bill is concerned which it is proposed to introduce.
As hon. members of the house are aware, the bill referred to in this report is with respect to a considerable sum of money that was left over from the contributions that were made at the time of the flood in Manitoba in 1950. I believe the amount of money is of the order of $1,450,000 and that the petitioners in this case are asking from parliament a bill to authorize the setting up of a Canadian disaster relief fund.
I need not go into the details as to how this money came to be left over, but I think it would be appropriate to suggest at this time that those who are behind this petition and this bill might give consideration to the possibility of finding some way to turn that money over to the fund which has been announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today, so that it might be used immediately for relief work in the United Kingdom, in the Netherlands and in Belgium.
The thought that this might be done has already been suggested in an editorial in one of the Winnipeg newspapers, and I have no doubt that the other one will probably express the same viewpoint. I am sure all those in Manitoba will support that view. It seems rather strange that we should think of holding on to a large sum of money if it is needed at all at the present time. As was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) the other day, we in Manitoba are deeply conscious of the way in which people around the world came to our assistance when we were in need in 1950. I think it would meet with the wishes and
1636	HOUSE OF
Committee on Criminal Law the desires of the people of Manitoba if some way were found to carry out the suggestion to which I have referred. I hope those who are behind this measure will give some consideration to that proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the special committee on Bill No. 93, respecting the criminal law, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. In view of a certain item in this morning's Gazette concerning the possible progress in consideration of this bill, would the Minister of Justice care to comment at this time?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the position is that some doubt has been raised as to the intention of the government with regard to the completion of the work on this bill during the present session of parliament. A great deal of work has been done on this bill, first of all by the Criminal Code revision commission; then by the law officers of the Department of Justice; by the commissioners on uniformity of legislation, criminal section; by the departments of the attorneys general of the various provinces; by the Nova Scotia bar; by the British Columbia bar and by the other place

and its banking and commerce committee, especially by a subcommittee consisting of Senator Hayden, Senator Farris and Senator Roebuck. Having regard to all of this work that has been done there is no reason, in our opinion, why a careful and thorough consideration cannot be given to this Bill 93 by the House of Commons committee and by the house itself before the end of the present session. Certainly it is the intention of the government to proceed vigorously with the consideration of the bill to that end.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	How many applications have been received for permits for use of steel since December 1, 1950V
2.	How many permits for use of steel have been issued since December 1, 1950, (a) to whom were they issued; (b) what was the date of issue; (c) for what quantity was each permit issued?


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have discussed the question with the hon. member and she advised me yesterday that she wished to have it dropped for rewording.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



FISHERIES, N.S.-VALUES

Mr. Balcom:: What were the fisheries landings and landed value for the years 1951 and 1952 for Halifax, Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne and Yarmouth counties, Nova Scotia?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Halifax County . . Lunenburg County Queens County ... Shelburne County Yarmouth County
Landings Landed value Cwt.	$
934,198	4,718,506
633,905	2,403,906
113,534	599,948
487,662	3,750,169
235,566	2,346,676
Landings Landed value Cwt.	# $
923,970	4',716,559
674,203	2,688,728
109,146	550,745
553,838	3,741,243
249,573	2,723,190



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	How many new passenger coaches have been added to the Canadian National Railways system, during the past five years?
2.	How many in 1952?
3.	How many have been scrapped during the past five year period, and how many in 1952?
4.	How many oil burning locomotives have been added during the five year period from 1948 to 1952 inclusive, and how many in 1952?
5.	How many steam locomotives were added during the past five years, and how many in 1952?
6.	How many have been scrapped during the past five years?
TMr. Knowles.)
7.	How many refrigerator cars were added during the five year period ending December 31, 1952, and how many in 1952?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. 61.
2.	Nil.
3.	During the last five years, 94; during 1952, 24.
4.	1948 to 1952 inclusive'-new diesels, 269; 1952, new diesels, 66.
			FEBRUARY 5, 1953			1637
					Questions	
1948 to 1952	inclusive-new oil		burning,	HALIFAX COUNTY, N.S.-FISHERIES VALUES		
6; 1952, nil.						
5. During the	past five years-Coal burn-	Mr. Balcom:	ing steam locomotives, nil:	1952. nil.	What were the fisheries landings and landed	6. Steam locomotives scraDDed. 108.	value by species,	for the years 1951	and 1952, Hali-7. New refrigerator cars-	-During	the past	fax county, Nova	Scotia?	hve years, 1,100;	during 1952, 500.	Mr. MacNaughl:	1951	1952	Landings	Landed value	: Landings	Landed valueCwt.	$	Cwt.	$Cod 	412,043	1,465,592	375,305	1,453,936Haddock 	155,903	730,715	177,906	836,527Pollock 	29,251	32,402	40,881	68,549Hake 	15,867	25,623	17,824	30,130Cusk 	1,240	1,482	1,376	2,217Rosefish 	31,424	93,813	28,406	81,314Catfish 	6,438	13,677	5,645	14,773Halibut 	42,720	899,712	21,113	509,546Plaice 	110,010	357,541	121,923	411,670Yellowtail ....	13,128	40,353	11,220	39,609Witch 	9,246	28,401	13,553	47,450Flounders ....	9,425	30,335	Turbot	20	40Skate 	1,000	1,000	879	907Herring 	21,439	34,326	40,639	67,524Mackerel 	24,040	99,836	11,821	72,956Alewives 	3,633	6,405	2,232	3,306Shad 	10	37	45	142Salmon 	188	7,735	254	12,117Smelts 	109	2,514	244	5,925Swordfish ....	4,229	172,464	5,140	131,877Tuna 	1,442	9,897	1,772	11,962Eels 	162	3,296	225	4,963Lobsters 	14,992	518,642	20,330	716,580Clams 	18,723	50,030	13,760	59,685Scallops 	1,308	52,127	1,902	94,088Squid 	338	1,459	181	855Cod livers	4,824	12,094	8,757	18,656Halibut livers .	965	23,830	419	13,205Swordfish livers	49	1,448	137	4,080Tuna livers ...	52	1,650	61	1,90070	70Totals	934,198	4,718,506	923,970	4,716,559QUESTIONS PASSED AS	ORDERS FOR	5. Since January 1, 1948, how many five-gallon	RETURNS	cases of paint have been shipped out of Churchill	from the defence	establishment on requisition, and	NATIONAL DEFENCE, CHURCHILL	LIGHT BULBS	what was their destination?	AND PAINT	NATIONAL	DEFENCE	SNOWMOBILES


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1. How many electric light bulbs have	been pur-	Mr. White (Middlesex East):	chased by the Department of	National	Defence,	1. How many s	snowmobiles or similar vehicles	since January 1, 1948, for the defence establishment	have been purchased for the	Department ofat Churchill, Manitoba?	National Defence,	since "Operation	Muskox", May2. How many of	these have	been requisitioned,	1946?	and what is the total number now on hand?	2. From what firm, or firms, were these vehicles	3. How many five-gallon cases	of paint have been	purchased?	delivered to the defence establishment at Churchill,	3. It purchased	from more than	one firm, whatby the Department of National Defence, since	were the number	of vehicles purchased from each?	January 1, 1948?	4. What has been the total cost of these vehicles?	4. How many have been requisitioned,	and how	5. What has been the disposition of these vehicles	many are now on	hand?	by military establishments in Canada?	1638	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry BUTTER



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY IN RELEASING BUTTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister make a statement to the house as to whether it is the intention of the government to release government-held butter to the trade in the very near future?
Will the minister also comment on the statement made by his parliamentary assistant in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) as to the reason for placing restrictions on the sale of this butter?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me a copy of his question. I think I can best answer it by reminding the house that over the last four years we have been following the same general policy, namely that of stabilizing the price to farmers throughout the summer months, and we have been making an attempt also to stabilize the price to consumers throughout the winter months. The first winter we were not so successful in stabilizing the price to the consumers. I am not going to comment any further than to say that. During the second winter we had some difficulties as well. During the last year we have been getting along fairly well with that policy.
During the past summer we took delivery of the butter of farmers at all times when it was found impossible or impracticable for others to pay as much as 58 cents a pound for it. We bought the butter at 58 cents, or at comparable rates across Canada, to an extent which gave us about 40 million pounds of butter by the 1st of November last. At about that time we announced to the public of Canada that a reasonable return for the butter which the government had, in order to cover our costs, would be 62 cents a pound. We therefore said on December 4 last that any time we delivered butter until May 1, 1953, we would deliver it at 62 cents, which placed everyone in the trade in a position to know that there was at that time 40 million pounds of butter which could be delivered to them at 62 cents and when occasion arose to make delivery necessary, we would act so as to keep ourselves in position to carry out our undertakings.
Between then and now we have delivered 10 million pounds. The trade has 15 million pounds, and there is coming on to the market month by month 10 million pounds


that we cannot get control of in any way. Those 10 million pounds go to the trade. In other words, for the month of February there are 25 million pounds of butter available in Canada to the trade, and that much butter will not be consumed in Canada in the month of February. All of that butter will be available.
The only objective we have in mind is to see to it that our undertaking that we would be able to deliver butter to the trade right down to May 1 next at 62 cents a pound will be carried out. We will be delivering butter to the trade in order to take care of the situation and in such a manner as to provide that we carry out to the consumers the undertaking we gave that butter would be available to them at a price based on a wholesale price of 62 cents right through to the end of this present dairy year, which is down to the end of April.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) addressed a question to the Prime Minister on that part of President Eisenhower's address to congress on the state of the union which concerned Formosa. In replying at that time the Prime Minister indicated that more information, might be available later in the week when it was hoped that a discussion on external affairs would take place. That discussion cannot, I think, now take place until next week, and I would therefore like to give information supplementary to that which was given by the Prime Minister on Monday.
I have had an opportunity, as have hon, members, since Monday of studying the text of the statement by the President of the United States to which I have referred. In that statement, as hon. members know, the President announced the modification of the presidential order to the seventh fleet issued by his predecessor on June 27, 1950. That order, which was given, as the house will recall, shortly after the aggressive attack on South Korea, was in the nature of an instruction to the United States seventh fleet both to prevent any attack upon Formosa from the mainland, and also to ensure that Formosa should not be used as a base of operations against the Chinese communist mainland.
The order was issued, of course, before the large-scale intervention by Chinese communist forces in Korea, and its objective was

to neutralize Formosa in order to limit the hostilities arising out of the aggression of June 25, 1950, on the Korean peninsula.
As the Prime Minister indicated Monday, the original order was an action taken on the sole responsibility of the United States government, just as the recent action modifying it with respect to what the President has termed the employment of the seventh fleet to "shield communist China" was taken on the sole responsibility of the United States government. That, however, does not make the matter one of little or merely indirect interest to other countries, including Canada.
With respect to the position of the Canadian government, while we remain resolved to carry out our United Nations obligations in Korea, we do not think that the defence of Formosa, which has not been assumed by the United Nations, should be confused with the defence of Korea, which has. As I have mentioned on several occasions in the house, on May 15, 1951, on May 22, 1951, and on April 1, 1952, our consistent position has been that this island should be neutralized, so far as that is possible, while hostilities continue in Korea. Our view has been that the final disposition of Formosa should be a subject to be discussed at a conference on Far Eastern problems which should be held when the fighting ceases in Korea; and we strongly supported the statement of principles approved by the political committee of the fifth United Nations general assembly which specifically provided for such a conference. In any decision regarding the future of Formosa, the wishes of the people there would naturally be a primary consideration.
In considering the possible effects of this recent action by the United States government, I should emphasize that on Far Eastern issues, as on other questions in which we are both concerned, the fundamental and long-term aims of Canada and the United States are similar, although naturally we may differ on occasions in our approach to specific issues and as to how these long-term aims can best be achieved.
Canadians of course know President Eisenhower well. They feel a deep gratitude for the services he has already rendered the free world and have full confidence, I am sure, in his peaceful and constructive purposes. And I am convinced that one of these purposes-as it is the purpose of this government and this parliament and our country, and the purpose of the other governments who are now engaged in Korea-is to end and not to extend the Korean war.
It should also be noted that in his statement President Eisenhower stated clearly
Inquiries of the Ministry that "this order implies no aggressive intent on our part". Nor should we, I think, assume that because of this order any large scale operations in the near future are likely to be undertaken by Chinese nationalist forces on the mainland. The order does, however, rescind that part of the original order by which' the United States seventh fleet would prevent any such operations.
The original order did give, I suppose, to the communist forces in China a feeling of immunity from attack from Formosa. This has become increasingly unacceptable to the people of the United States, as the Chinese communists have continued their aggression in Korea and only recently rejected a resolution, approved by the present United Nations general assembly, which could have ended the war there on acceptable terms. The United States government has, therefore, found it necessary to take action to alter a situation which was considered no longer to have its original justification.
It is no doubt hoped that this change may keep more Chinese communist forces in China and hence have an advantageous effect on United Nations operations in Korea. It would of course be another matter, as hon. members will be aware, if Chinese nationalist raiders or invading forces were escorted or protected in their operations by the armed forces of other United Nations governments. We have no reason to believe, however, on the basis of any information available to us that any such development will take place, the consequences of which would be far-reaching.
We are not of course committed by, though naturally we are concerned with, the action taken in Washington in connection with this matter. The government will follow developments with the closest possible attention and take appropriate action to make our views known if and when the occasion so warrants. Meanwhile I think it would be unwise and premature to jump to dogmatic or critical conclusions concerning the step taken by the United States government, and announced in a statement by President Eisenhower which contained so much that was wise and heartening to us all.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. First, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house when a debate on this subject will be undertaken; and second, whether the government was informed of this contemplated action on the part of the United States, and whether the government has been informed of any other action, in addition to this, in the same area?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the first question is concerned, it is hoped that a discussion on external affairs may take place in the early part of next week, perhaps Monday or Tuesday. Replying to the second question, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated last Monday, we were informed as a matter of courtesy about this United States unilateral action before it took place. We were informed on Friday last that this paragraph would be included in the President's message. We have no information about any possibility or likelihood of any subsequent action being taken by the United States government.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the international wheat conference at Washington. Is the Canadian government taking an attitude similar to that of United States representatives who, as is reported in a Reuters dispatch from Washington, are asking for an increase of approximately 36 per cent in the present ceiling price and approximately 55 per cent in the present minimum price?


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Since the international wheat conference is a private meeting, and since they are negotiating the possibility of a renewal of the international wheat agreement, I think it would be improper for me to comment upon or discuss what our position is, or what is being put forward there.
The Reuters dispatch, which the hon. member was good enough to show me, does mention in its text that this meeting is a private conference. It prefaces the story with such expressions as "sources said", "it was learned", and so on. I do not know that it would be proper for me to enter into a discussion as to whether or not the story is accurate.
I think it might be helpful, however, if I were to remind the house that on May 26 last, at the conclusion of the first part of this present conference, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made a statement to the house which contains this paragraph:
With the unanimous agreement of all the advisers, the Canadian delegation took the position that a substantial increase in prices was justified in a renewed agreement and made proposals along

that line. The United States and Australia, the two other principal exporters, also put forward proposals for a substantially higher range of prices.
I do not think I should go further than that in answering the hon. member's question.	*


Mr. Argue:: Would the parliamentary
assistant give us some idea when the conference may conclude, and when a statement may be made in the matter?


George James McIlraith: No, I cannot tell when the conference would conclude. That would be something quite outside our control.


SAINT JOHN BRIDGE AND RAILWAY EXTENSION COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 38, respecting the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company.
Mr. Brooks:: Could we have an explanation from the minister?


Mr. Chevrier:: May I make it in committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We would like to have a statement by the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: I asked the hon. member
if I might be permitted to make it in committee.


Mr. Green:: We are proposing to suggest that this bill be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. If that is to be done, discussion in the house would have to take place on the motion for second reading.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to speaking now.
The Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company was incorporated by the statutes of New Brunswick (1881) 44 Victoria, chapter 44, with authority to construct and maintain a line connecting the Saint John and Maine Railway at Fairville, New Brunswick, with that of the Intercolonial Railway at its terminus in Saint John, New Brunswick. It was also authorized to construct a bridge across the Saint John river as part of this undertaking. The company was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada by chapter 26 of the statutes of Canada, 1883.
By the act last mentioned the federal government was authorized to make a loan to the Saint John Bridge and Railway

Extension Company of $433,900 upon the security of a mortgage on the entire assets and property of the company. The loan was made and the mortgage given by the company to the federal government on December 10, 1883.
The loan was repayable in 15 years and in 1898 under authority of chapter 9 of the statutes of 1898, the maturity date was estended for another 15 years. No further extension has been given but interest has been paid annually at 4 per cent.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company acquired a majority of the common stock of the bridge company in 1905 and for many years has owned all outstanding shares and securities. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has advised the government that it is now prepared to repay this loan and wishes to take an assignment of the mortgage. The Canadian Pacific represents that it is necessary, upon repayment, that all title of Her Majesty in the properties mortgaged become vested in the Canadian Pacific and that its right to ownership of the shares and securities be beyond question.
Although the bridge company is a separate corporation, it is by ownership and operation an integral part of the Canadian Pacific system. In view of this it is desirable that the companies be given the powers contemplated by sections 151 to 153 of the Railway Act.
This is the ordinary type of bill which is passed under similar circumstances when a debt or loan is repaid. It consists of the usual assignment, not only of the mortgage security on the property but also the right to sue on the demand covenant as well as the rights under the usual covenants mentioned in the document.
This is a simple bill for the purpose of enabling the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to repay the loan to the government and to have the title of Her Majesty in the properties covered by the mortgage vested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to oppose this bill as I know it has been considered by another place, but I think perhaps there is a little more interest in it than might be indicated by what the minister has said. I do not intend to go into the history of the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company except to say that in the early days this bridge provided an important link in our Canadian transportation system between the eastern part of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the western part of the province and the United States.
Saint John Bridge Company
When this matter first came up I read over the debates in 1883 when this particular bill asking for a charter from the province of New Brunswick to a private company was before the dominion house. The resolution was presented by Sir Leonard Tilley, who was the member for the city of Saint John. It was pointed out at that time how important this railway link was. Sir Edward Blake, who took part in the debate, as did Sir Charles Tupper, objected to a private company getting control of such an important link in our transportation system.
The objection at that time was based on the fact that there were other railways which were interested, and that there was a possibility of the shares of the company being purchased by one railway to the disadvantage of the others. The shares were purchased, as the minister has told us, by the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1905, but there has been no intimation that this has worked to the disadvantage of any other company. Sir Edward Blake referred also to the matter of tolls which he contended should be controlled by the federal government if they did not build the . bridge themselves. Sir Leonard Tilley explained that they would be under the control of the federal government.
I think it is only natural that the Canadian Pacific should get control of this bridge and railway. As far as is known I believe they have acted fairly with the other railways. This bridge is used not only by the Canadian Pacific but also by the Canadian National and in the past it has been used by other railroads. Now that the Canadian Pacific virtually will be the owners of this bridge I should like to ask the minister what arrangements have been made for the protection of the Canadian National and other railways which will use it. Is this bridge to be a separate entity or are running rights to be given, not only over the bridge but over that part of the railroad line which is owned by the Canadian Pacific and used by the Canadian National?
There is another point that occurs to me. This act was passed by the federal house 70 years ago, and it is over 70 years since the act was passed by the New Brunswick legislature. In Saint John for the past number of years there has been a feeling that there should be a bridge across the Saint John harbour. I should like to ask the minister whether any representations have been made to his department for assistance in the construction of a bridge across that harbour, which possibly might be joined in by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
These are some questions which I should like to have the minister answer. I would

Saint John Bridge Company suggest also that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) for introducing into the discussion of this bill a subject which has been uppermost in the minds of all of us in Saint John for some time. This railway bridge is the only bridge across the Saint John river or harbour between Saint John and Fredericton. Along with the highway bridge which is adjacent, it is the only link between Saint John proper and Lancaster and thence the southwestern section of the province.
The question of a new bridge has been under study by the people of Saint John for many years. The need for civil defence has brought this problem more prominently to the fore. I suggest to the minister that he give some thought to the question of a bridge across Saint John harbour. We must remember that practically the only means of transportation now existing between the central and western sections of the city of Saint John and the city of Lancaster which lies adjacent thereto is an antiquated ferryboat, the operation of which is costing the city of Saint John a considerable amount of money each year, because it operates at a deficit.
I know that before very long stronger representations than ever are going to be made to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in connection with this proposed bridge. I hope that by having this advance notice of the intention of the people of Saint John he will be in a position, and the engineers of his department will also be in a position, to give the question full consideration. Perhaps the engineers might work on the subject and see if there is not some way whereby the people of the city of Saint John can be given more ready access to that part of the city which lies on the western side of the harbour. It should also be taken into account that this railway bridge, together with the adjacent highway bridge, constitute the sole link between the east and west sides of the Saint John river above Fredericton.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to hon. members who have taken part in this debate for the matters they have brought to the attention of the house. However, I would remind hon. members that this is a simple bill which has only two things in mind. The first is whether


or not we shall accept payment of a mortgage which is owing by the company in question to the crown for $433,000 odd, and then whether we shall grant title as requested , under the terms of the bill. That is all that is before the house. There is no question of tolls, no question of running rights of the Canadian National Railways and no question of building another bridge across the Saint John harbour.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was simply going to ask whether or not the protection of any other railroad would be of interest in connection with this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: It might be of interest. All these questions are of interest to the house and of interest to hon. members, more particularly, I would think, to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) who has just spoken; but whether they deal with the matter under discussion is another thing. What I am trying to say to the hon. member, as respectfully as I can, is that this is a simple bill to determine the right of acceptance of the moneys owing and, next, to give title under the act to the company paying the money.
For those reasons I do not see the slightest occasion for referring this bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines but I am not going to take that position. If my hon. friend feels that he, and those whom he represents, will be more adequately protected by reference of the bill to that committee I am not going to stand in the way.
I do not think it is necessary because the matter is so simple. Now, since he has asked some questions perhaps I should deal with them.
He has inquired about the matter of tolls. Well, again I say this bill does not deal with tolls. The board of transport commissioners is the body charged with the responsibility for establishment of tolls upon application by railways and other groups. Also he inquired what subsidiary corporation was operating this bridge. My understanding is that the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company was incorporated in 1881, and in 1883 the company was declared by this parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. In 1885 the bridge and railway were completed and operated by the New Brunswick Railway Company, who took over operation of the bridge. Since then the property in the bridge has been taken over by the Canadian Pacific Railway who, in 1905, purchased a controlling interest in the shares of the company. So the parent company, as I understand it, is the Canadian

Pacific Railway and the subsidiary is the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company.
With reference to the representations in connection with a bridge across the harbour of Saint John, that with other matters I think might be dealt with at the proper opportunity. We are charged here with one responsibility, and if my hon. friend will allow me, I would like to deal with that particular responsibility now and with the others when the opportunity arises.
If my friend feels, and if the opposition feels, that this bill should go to the committee I will not raise any objection. I therefore move that it be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was just going to reply to a remark made by the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This cannot be allowed, as the hon. member knows. The minister has closed the debate; this is second reading of the bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I just want to ask a question. Under section 3 it says that this is subject to the provisions of sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Railway Act; and also that it is subject to section 6 of chapter 47 of the statutes of 1890. That I think has to do with tolls and the acquiring of running rights by other railways over this bridge and this road.


Lionel Chevrier: I have section 6 of chapter 47 of the statutes of 1890 here and it has nothing to do with tolls. It simply sets out the manner in which transactions shall be carried out and, in so far as clause 3 of the bill is concerned, it should be stipulated in the special act that the company paying off the mortgage may have the right to enter into agreements with another railway company. The Canadian Pacific Railway, which is paying off the mortgage, would, I take it, like to continue or enter into agreements with the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company. It is for that reason that the section is included in the bill.


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

Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 39, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
Overseas Telecommunication Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1949 parliament enacted the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act. Under that act the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, commonly referred to as the
C.O.T.C., was established as a crown corporation without share capital. The corporation was set up for the purpose of taking over the property and equipment in Canada of the Canadian Marconi Company and Cable and Wireless Limited used in connection with external communication services, and to operate these services as a unit within the commonwealth telecommunications system.
Since this act was passed in 1949 two important measures have been enacted by parliament which relate to financial operations of crown corporations. First, in 1951 the Financial Administration Act was passed, and part VIII of this act applies generally to crown corporations including the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. Part VIII of the Financial Administration Act contains provisions that are designed to regulate the financial operations of crown corporations.
Second, in 1952 the Income Tax Act was amended to apply to crown corporations specified in schedule D of the Financial Administration Act. The Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation is one of these crown corporations which is now subject to the Income Tax Act.
The bill provides for the removal of the mandatory requirement on the corporation to pay annually to the Receiver General an amount equal to its operating profit, and also the provision requiring payment to the corporation of an amount equal to its operating loss, to be paid from moneys appropriated by parliament for that purpose.
The proposed amendment would permit the corporation to accumulate a surplus to be used for capital development and expansion purposes, as well as to provide a surplus for contingencies. As the corporation would be subject to the provisions of part VIII of the Financial Administration Act, its capital budget would have to be approved by the governor in council and the expenditure of any surplus remaining after the payment of income tax would be subject to approval of the government.
Since the corporation commenced business as a unit within the commonwealth telecommunications system on April 1, 1950, its operations have been profitable, as shown in the corporation's annual reports tabled in this house. It is expected that the corporation will pay to the federal government taxes for the year 1952 estimated at $129,768, subject to adjustment.
1G44	HOUSE OF
Overseas Telecommunication Act
I think the reports that have been tabled already indicate that for the first year's operation there has been a surplus of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $85,000; for the second year the surplus is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150,000, both of which amounts have been turned over to the federal treasury.
With the changes contemplated in this bill, the corporation would have some flexibility in its financial arrangements and, subject to the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, would be permitted to set aside a portion of its surplus, after payment of taxes, to be used for capital development and contingencies. Part II of the bill is merely for the purpose of the new revised statutes.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: This is the first time we have heard about the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation since it was set up in 1949. There have been reports, as the minister stated, which were tabled in the house and which appeared in the Auditor General's report a long time after they had been prepared. Hon. members will recall that the purpose of setting up the corporation in 1949 was to take over Cable and Wireless Limited which, as its name implies, was the company which operated cable and radio telegraph communications owned by the British company, in conformity with an agreement with other members of the commonwealth.
At that time hon. members may remember that a large sum of money, some $4-5 million, was appropriated for the purpose of taking over the assets of the company. We have not yet received any statement of how that money was disbursed. Questions asked when the bill was under consideration received answers that the matter had not yet been adjusted. From an examination of the two reports it will be seen that the adjustment had not been made up to the time of the last report dated March 31, 1952. As the minister states, the corporation has been a profitable business venture, having a profit of $89,000 in the first nine months of its operation and about $190,000 in its second year of operation.
An examination of this bill as it stands gives the members of this house very little information. The study I have made of it indicates that the bill is quite complicated. It is of such a nature that it seems to me that, like the previous bill, it should be referred to a committee. I am not sure if the financial statements have been examined in the public accounts committee, but I believe the time is opportune when some


consideration should be given to the details which were not available when the former bill was under consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell the hon. member that it is my intention to move to refer this, for the very reasons he has mentioned, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad to hear the minister's statement in that respect. There are, however, one or two things of a general nature which I should like to mention. The corporation operates radiotelephone and has to do with telephone communication with Newfoundland. Hon. members will recall that a reduction was made in the rates between Newfoundland and other parts of Canada a few months ago. At that time I protested that the rates were not sufficiently reduced and we were not given the advantage of special rates after 6 p.m. in the evenings and on Sundays as is done elsewhere in Canada. In the last report of the corporation I noticed that business between Newfoundland and the other provinces of Canada had increased by about 20 per cent, whereas communications across the Atlantic had declined. It seems to me, therefore, that since the corporation has been making so much money on its business with Newfoundland, there is every justification for a greater reduction in rates than we received.
The minister has referred to the purpose for which the excess revenue over expenditures will be used, and stated that it will be for capital expansion. In the Gazette of last Saturday I noticed a picture of one of the officials of this corporation in Montreal explaining to the premier and attorney general of Newfoundland a plan for a new building to be erected in St. John's which was going to cost a quarter of a million dollars. It seems to me that members of this house are entitled to that information before it is given to the public. We do not know anything about this corporation. It seems strange that the government should be conducting so many large businesses, and that plans should be decided upon for large expenditures of money before the legislation authorizing them has been passed in this house.
In studying this simple bill I have been impressed with the lack of information that hon. members have on these corporations that are included in schedule D of the Financial Administration Act. It is true that the business of Canadian National Railways is considered by a special committee, but hon. members should not have to guess at what is going on in a corporation of this kind. It

is true that perhaps only $2 million of revenue is involved, but the principle remains. I am, therefore, very glad to know from the minister that this bill will be referred to a committee, and I presume it will be the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


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

Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have permission to deal with this in committee. When the original bill came up for discussion it was referred to committee of the whole and not to a standing committee. I would hope that it would be the feeling of the house that we should do the same with this amendment. It is, in fact, only an amendment to one section of the original bill. If I could have the permission of the house, I should like to make a statement in committee.


Howard Charles Green: We were not intending to ask that this bill go to any committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Recapture where survey completed.
Lionel Chevrier: Before attempting to explain the present bill it should perhaps be observed that under section 7 of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act shipowners are permitted each year to transfer to reserve account a limited sum of tax-free money. The purpose of that section is to enable an owner to accumulate sufficient funds to meet certain extraordinary expenses which he has to incur periodically in connection with the special surveys or inspections of his ship. The intervals at which special surveys must be held are either every four or every five years depending upon whether the survey is for purposes of insurance under the rules of a classification society or for purposes of safety under the Canada Shipping Act.
It has been found necessary to amend the section in order to guard against the loss of revenue by leaving tax-free reserves in the hands of shipowners for indefinite periods of time. Accordingly the present amendment 68108-105J
Vessel Construction Assistance Act provides machinery for periodically recapturing or rendering taxable such of these reserves as are not or cannot be used for the purpose for which they were intended as, for instance, in cases where the amounts set aside exceed the costs of survey or where a ship is lost or sold at some time during one of these four or five year cycles.
The amendment now before the committee requires all reserves to be brought into profit and loss account in the year in which the survey was completed or in which the ship was lost or sold. It should be observed that under the amendment the reserve account periodically becomes self-liquidating. If, on the one hand, the ship is lost or sold, the reserve must thereupon be brought into profit and loss account. If, on the other hand, nothing happens to the ship and the survey is held in due course, the reserve is brought into profit and loss account in the form of a credit and the costs of survey are entered in the same account by way of offsetting debit.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act was passed in 1949 with the object, among others, of encouraging shipbuilding in Canada. It contained a provision for accelerated depreciation in the case of the construction of new vessels and also in the case of repairs, as I read the original act. Then there was this help given in the way of allowing a reserve to be set up from which the quadrennial survey and certain other expenses which would occur from time to time could be provided for in the intervening years.
This amendment before the committee today purports to make provision for recovering taxation on these reserves. In effect it is certainly not going to be of any help to the shipbuilding industry. It is the reverse. It is a help to the Department of National Revenue.
I can see the reason for making these reserves taxable where the survey has not been held. For example, if the ship has been lost in the meantime, then there would appear to be no reason why that money which has been put in a reserve should not become taxable. But it is not so clear why the money which has actually been spent on the survey should be taxable.
The minister did not explain that point in his opening remarks. But as I read section 1 of the bill, once the survey has been made and has been paid for, taxation is to be levied on the amount actually used in payment for the survey. I do not understand why such payments should not be allowed
1546	HOUSE OF
Vessel Construction Assistance Act as an operating expense and thus not be taxable at all. I may not have the correct explanation of the section, but to me it reads in that way.


Lionel Chevrier: They are allowed as an expense.


Howard Charles Green: I hope that is correct. We can go into that matter in a little more detail in a few minutes.
While one object of the original act was to aid shipbuilding in Canada, another equally important objective was to modernize the Canadian merchant navy. This had become necessary because of the fact that the ships we built during the war were all slow cargo vessels quite unable to compete with the faster ships which were being built by other countries, commencing immediately after the war.
I have here the various reports of our own Canadian maritime commission, all of which substantiate my statement that Canada needed a modern, fast merchant navy. Similar statements have been made from time to time by the minister himself. I doubt whether he or anyone else would question the fact that one of the great needs in Canada since the end of the last war has been to build up a modern merchant navy. If we cannot succeed in doing that it is only a matter of time until we cease to be a maritime nation in so far as deep-sea shipping is concerned.
This plan was therefore brought in to encourage the building of modern cargo vessels. There was also, of course, what was known as the replacement plan under which, if the owner of one of the slow, war-built cargo vessels sold his ship, he had to put the proceeds into an escrow fund managed by the Canadian maritime commission, the idea being that that money would eventually be used in the construction of a modern vessel.
The result of these two plans-the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act and the replacement plan-has been that Canada has built a great many ships for the great lakes trade and also for coastal shipping. For that reason I believe that the plans can be considered as being at least partially successful. Mind you, the bulk of our shipbuilding now is naval shipbuilding. I do not know the percentage-the minister can tell us that-but perhaps 75 or 80 per cent of the value of shipbuilding in the country today is for the Department of National Defence or for some other department of government.
As to naval shipbuilding and building for the great lakes trade and for the coastal


trade, the situation seems to be fairly satisfactory. But when we turn to the building of vessels for the deep-sea trade, the picture is entirely different. We have built very very few modern cargo vessels. I believe that two tankers are now being built, but so far as I am able to ascertain from the fifth report of the Canadian maritime commission, which is dated June 30, 1952, no other modern cargo vessels or modern tankers have been built for the ocean-going trade.
If we turn to page 6 of the report we find great jubilation because of the fact that these two tankers are being built. The paragraph in question reads:
What must also be regarded as an encouraging development took place toward the end of 1951.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I do not want to stop him from discussing the problems of the Canadian maritime commission; neither do I want to interfere with the discussion of the subject which he is now introducing, but I have not come here prepared to deal with that subject. I am here ready to discuss the bill that is before the committee, which is a depreciation measure, and which simply seeks to recapture certain of the funds that shipowners and shipbuilders are claiming as exemptions. Now, if the chair wants to allow the hon. member to go into a full discussion of the shipbuilding problems in Canada, I will not object. I think that I can draw on my memory to deal with them, but it will be in only a very general way, and it certainly will not be in as satisfactory a way as I would like it and I am sure as he would like it to be dealt with. Therefore I raise the point.


Howard Charles Green: I am going to suggest that further provision should be made in this bill to help meet the situation, and I think I am quite in order in doing so. To lay the groundwork for that I must complete this picture. The paragraph to which I was referring reads as follows:
What must also be regarded as an encouraging development took place toward the end of 1951. This was the placing of an order for a 28,000 deadweight ton tanker for Canadian registry, the first ocean-going vessel to be constructed under the commission's replacement plan, followed early in the new year by an order from the same owners for a second tanker of similar dimensions. The commission has always been anxious to see the primary purpose of the plan fulfilled through the building of new ocean-going tonnage, and it is to be hoped that the two new tankers will prove to be the forerunners of other ocean-going vessels built in Canadian shipyards.
We are building modern vessels for other countries. I believe some are being built in the Vickers yards in Montreal at the moment. The policies do not seem to be broad enough

to result in having these fast vessels built for Canada. The minister was asked about this during the last session, and at that time-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must ask for a ruling. I think this is wholly out of order on the matter before us. This is a bill which has to do with the recapture of certain moneys exempt from income tax under the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. I think this discussion is going away beyond the subject before the house.


Howard Charles Green: I am just laying the foundation, sir, for my suggestion that further provision should be made in this bill.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would the hon. member
mind telling us what his suggestions are. We can realize that he is laying a foundation for his argument, but we do not know whether he is leading toward it or not.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I have to interrupt again. In order to lay a foundation the hon. member must have something before the committee either by way of amendment to this section or by way of amendment to the bill. There is nothing before the committee other than section 1. It is true that he can talk on section 1 in general terms, but he certainly cannot go on and deal with the Canadian maritime commission report, which is not a matter that concerns this particular bill. There will be an opportunity on at least two occasions, when the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act are brought before the house and again when the estimates of the Department of Transport are up and we call the item having to do with the Canadian maritime commission, to deal with all the matters which my hon. friend seeks to discuss now, so that he is not being restricted, nor is there any unfairness in view of the fact that he will be perfectly at liberty to deal with this subject at a later date.


Howard Charles Green: This is legislation to assist shipbuilding in Canada. The minister has brought in an amendment to the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act today which in my opinion does the opposite. If anything, it hampers shipbuilding in Canada. Certainly the amendment is not helping to meet the situation that I am disclosing.


Lionel Chevrier: I disagree.


Howard Charles Green: The minister may disagree; that is his privilege, but any hon. member is entitled to discuss the bill from that point of view. I am going to suggest to the minister that he give consideration to making some further provision in this act which will
Vessel Construction Assistance Act bring about the construction of modern deep-sea vessels in Canada. I think that is perfectly in order. For example-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -I hold in my hand the Foreign Trade Journal of January 17 of this year.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I thank the hon. member for having clarified his position and explaining to the committee what his intentions are. Now that he has given us his intentions I am in a better position to say that in my humble view he is not in order.


Howard Charles Green: May we not discuss shipbuilding?


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is true that this is a bill to amend an act which is designed to bring about some assistance to vessel construction, but it deals only with depreciation that is to enable the shipowners to make certain deductions. What the hon. member has in mind is something to further amend the act in order to make it more appropriate to help the construction of vessels along the lines he has suggested. But right now we must deal with section 1. That is all that is before the committee. If he feels that this is not going to provide to the shipowners the type of help which the minister has suggested, he may speak to that, but not to suggest how further help by way of further amending the act should be given.
All we have before us now is clause 1 which deals with depreciation, certain deductions that shipowners are entitled to make.


Howard Charles Green: Surely I am not to be put in the position that because I agreed to let this bill receive second reading without discussion, I can only deal with the actual proposals contained in section 1. In the first place, as you know, Mr. Chairman, a practice has developed in this house under which we have a wide discussion on section 1. In the second place, on second reading of this bill amending the act any hon. member would have been entitled to say that this amendment does not go far enough, that there should be other amendments to the act to bring about the purpose which parliament had in mind when the original act was passed, and that is all I am trying to do now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not want to start a long discussion on procedure or on the point of order. I think the hon. member will agree that if this house by practice has authorized a general discussion of the bill on clause 1 of a bill he will agree that that does not entitle him to discuss the whole act. He can discuss generally the amendment provided by the amending bill. In this instance the
1648	HOUSE OF
Vessel Construction Assistance Act amending bill is limited to one particular. He can discuss generally that one particular.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, well-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I know the hon. member and others on both sides of the house have expressed varied opinions on the type of general discussion that is supposed to take place in committee on the first clause of a bill.
I have experienced that many times. But it seems unreasonable for hon. members to believe that, although by practice they are entitled to have a general discussion on the first section of a bill, they can discuss the whole act, and spend most of their time trying to advance arguments supporting another point, or in support of something else they would like to see in the bill.
If the hon. member is laying a foundation for a suggestion he has in mind along that line, then I am afraid he will be out of order most of the time. Perhaps he should be content to make passing references to other things he would like to see in the bill, but to direct his remarks particularly to the depreciation clause authorized by this amending bill.
The hon. member has said that because he agreed to have the bill considered in committee he should not now be prevented from saying what he would have been allowed to say in the debate on second reading. I would point out to him that in the debate on second reading he would have had to address himself to the principle of the amending bill. He could not have discussed the sections of the bill, and his speech in any event would have had to be relevant. See Votes and Proceedings, Monday, 14th November, 1949, page 237.
Now that second reading has been adopted, while I may sympathize with the hon. member's position I cannot allow him in committee to make the type of speech which could have been allowed in the debate on second reading. As I said a moment ago, this difficulty can be resolved easily if hon. members indicate their willingness to make progress. I would ask the hon. member's co-operation in this regard.


Howard Charles Green: If that is to be the position, then certainly the opposition would be very foolish on any future measure to agree to any minister's suggestion that a bill go to committee without a debate on second reading. I did this today to facilitate the minister's wishes.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not so.


Howard Charles Green: My speech would have been completed fifteen minutes ago if the minister
[The Chairman.]

had not objected. I must point out to Your Honour, with all respect, that there is no rule of procedure which says that when an amendment is up for consideration an hon. member cannot suggest that such amendment does not go far enough, or that there should be further amendments.
For example, some of the points I was going to suggest come within the scope of a measure of this kind. Yet Your Honour makes discussion impossible if a member must deal only with the one amendment placed before us, and cannot suggest any other variations by way of amendments. Your Honour makes debate impossible, if that is the position in which I am placed at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, I cannot allow the hon. member to make the statement he made a moment ago without making some comments. I am sure upon reflection he will admit that his statement was not fair, when he said that he was prejudiced in his opposition because he allowed second reading and permitted the house to go into committee.
The hon. member knows as well as I do that if the discussion had taken place with Mr. Speaker in the chair the only matters to which he could have referred would be those concerning depreciation. That is the only matter dealt with by this amendment to the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. Therefore he could not go on to talk about Canadian vessel construction or replacement plans. He could not, to my way of thinking, discuss naval vessel construction in this country.
This bill refers to one form of assistance which was passed in 1949. The amendment is not sought either to assist or to be detrimental to shipping companies. It is simply to recapture certain amounts of money exempted from taxation but not expended on a quadrennial survey, or moneys unspent because a ship has been lost.
If the hon. member wishes to discuss methods by which we can assist the shipping industry or the shipbuilding industry by way of amendment to this depreciation section, he is perfectly welcome to do so, and I shall be delighted to hear his suggestions. But if he wants to discuss the whole government policy as established by the maritime commission, and other shipping matters related to the Department of Transport, then there will be no end to the discussion. I submit, with all respect, that the discussion should be on the depreciation feature, because that is the point before us now.


Howard Charles Green: If that is to be Your Honour's ruling, I am bound by it.

Vessel Construction Assistance Act


Lionel Chevrier: That is all the amendment is.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the minister what has been done recently in Japan, but I cannot do so if the rule is interpreted in this way. What is the use of trying to debate the matter if we cannot bring these points out?


Louis-René Beaudoin: If this were an amendment to the Criminal Code, does the hon. member think he would be entitled to discuss the whole of the Criminal Code? Would he discuss the whole of it just because he thinks a further amendment should be brought in? That was the precise point made not so long ago in the house.
If the hon. member wishes to amend the bill further, we must dispose of one section first. Then he may rise in his place and say, "I should like to propose another clause, which will be known as clause 2, and which I now move." He would say that it reads in a certain way, and then would discuss it. That amendment would then be put and discussed.
Normally bills have more than one section, and when the bill is in committee hon. members have a general discussion on the first section. It so happens that this particular bill is an amending bill with only one section.


Howard Charles Green: There are three sections in it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The other sections are merely to bring the new section into accord with the revised statutes about to be published. It is the standard procedure which is followed in almost all the bills which have been brought in, or which are likely to be brought in, until the revised statutes are published.
Therefore the bill has only one section, in effect. I would not want the hon. member to remain under the impression that I wish to curtail discussion. I feel quite sure I am being fair not only to the hon. member, but to hon. members in all parts of the house, and particularly those of the opposition. I would be prepared to hear any other members in the opposition who feel that I am not being fair in this instance.
I feel, however, that I am following what has been done in the past when I interpret the rule to mean that discussion must be strictly relevant to the section. Discussion must always be within the scope of the amending bill. I do not mind passing references to other amendments the hon. member may think should be included, but I do suggest he should not make a speech on such a point, or lay the foundation by quoting what has been done by the maritime
commission, or by quoting press reports or questions the minister has been asked in the past.
I want to be as fair as I can. I would not want to make a ruling, but if that is the way I must act I would have to say that I so rule.


Howard Charles Green: I do not understand what Your Honour has in mind. You say that I can make passing references to ways in which this measure might be improved. What does Your Honour mean by that? That is all I was trying to do. If I can do that, all right; if I cannot do that, there is no use dealing with the measure at all.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am afraid the hon. member and I do not have the same conception of what is meant by a passing reference.


Mr. Gibson:: Reference is made in this section to a taxpayer, and to the moneys which are accumulated in this fund. Should a vessel be lost and the value be all recaptured in the one year I was wondering what the effect would be on an individual taxpayer as compared with a corporation taxpayer. Would an individual taxpayer's income tax not be considerably higher if it were collected all in the one year?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that there would be any difference between an individual and a corporation. As I understand the section, it operates in this way. Assume that in 1949, when the act was passed, an individual or corporation owning a ship wanted to claim depreciation; he or they would set aside over a period of some four or five years say $50,000. Let us take the first alternative. At the end of a five-year period a survey costs him only $40,000. He would then have to put back into his profit and loss account the sum of $10,000. Likewise, under the second alternative, if the ship were lost or destroyed, he would have to put back the full amount.


John Lambert Gibson: In the one year?


Lionel Chevrier: At the end of the four or five-year period, or during the year the ship was lost or destroyed.


John Lambert Gibson: It would be income for that year, and as an individual taxpayer his rate would naturally be up. If his profits were increased by $40,000 in that one year he would be in a higher bracket.	[DOT]


Lionel Chevrier: The $40,000 would not be put aside in one year, it would be put aside over the four or five-year period at the rate of say $10,000 a year.

Vessel Construction Assistance Act


John Lambert Gibson: That is the whole point. If he lost the ship after four years his income as an individual in that year would be up $40,000 and his bracket would be much higher.


Lionel Chevrier: The act provides for the recapture of that amount in the year in which the ship was lost or in which the survey was completed. I think the answer to my hon. friend's question is yes.


John Lambert Gibson: Does the minister think that the individual taxpayer is still protected and is treated equitably as compared to the corporation taxpayer? It does not appear to me that that is so.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot say any more than that. This is an income tax matter which has been given careful consideration by the income tax officials. I take it that their object was to get from the taxpayer the amount that he had been exempted during that period of four or five years. It is true that in the interval the tax may have increased and to that extent there might be some difficulty. I do not know whether that is what my hon. friend has in mind.


John Lambert Gibson: Assume that an individual taxpayer had a gross profit of $20,000 in one year and he set aside $10,000. He would only pay income tax on the $10,000. But then at the end of four years he has this additional $40,000 added to his income for that year.


Lionel Chevrier: He would not pay income tax on the $10,000.


John Lambert Gibson: He makes $20,000 gross profit. He pays income tax on $10,000, which is his normal income, and he sets $10,000 aside. But then he loses his ship. Supposing in that year he made his normal $20,000 gross profit. His income tax for that year would be computed on the basis of $60,000. That appears to me unfair when compared to the treatment given the incorporated company which would pay only 52 per cent on its profits for the year.


Lionel Chevrier: It would depend upon
whether the quadrennial or other special survey was completed. If it was completed and he had set aside $50,000 and had disbursed only $40,000, it is natural that he should pay income tax on the $10,000 for which he had got exemption over the period of ten years.


John Lambert Gibson: He gets exemption over the five years, but it becomes taxable in one year.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand the point my hon. friend is making. I doubt if the amendment covers that point.


John Lambert Gibson: I know the minister wants to be fair, and perhaps he would discuss this with the Department of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: Was it not the original intention when section 7 was written into the act that the money set aside for these surveys should not be taxed?


Lionel Chevrier: The intention was to encourage construction. There was to be this exemption for quadrennial surveys and classification surveys. As is set out in the amendment, it often happens that a ship is lost or destroyed and that section did not apply. Therefore there was no reason why there should not be a tax on that money. The point is that section 7 as it will apply would cover these exceptional cases. This is not the general rule, but once these sums have been set aside and a ship is lost or destroyed or a survey is completed, then taxation applies. I do not know what the proportion is, but I think in the vast majority of cases the amendment would not come into operation. The amendment is devised to cover these exceptional cases.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister says that where the money has been spent on a survey it should not be taxed.


Lionel Chevrier: That is correct. Where money has been spent on a survey, that should not be taxable. That is covered by the first part of section 1.


Howard Charles Green: As I read that provision the money is actually made taxable.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not made taxable; it is recaptured. There is a distinction between the two.


Howard Charles Green: It is put in the position where it is taxable. The minister has just said that the intention was that money actually spent on a survey would not be taxable. My understanding of the original act was that shipowners were allowed to set aside a reserve for this purpose which would not be taxable.


Lionel Chevrier: That is my understanding.


Howard Charles Green: As I read this amendment, the whole of that amount is made taxable. It reads:
(2) In any case where
(a)	a taxpayer has under subsection one made a deduction in respect of a vessel as a reserve for expenses to be incurred by reason of a quadrennial or other special survey of that vessel, and-
That is the setting aside of a reserve for the purpose of a survey.
(b)	the quadrennial or other special survey in respect of which the deduction was made has been completed to the extent that the vessel is permitted to proceed on a voyage.

in otner words, that paragraph covers the case where a survey has been completed. Then the amendment goes on: the aggregate amount of the deductions in respect of the vessel that have not previously been included in computing the taxpayer's income under part I of the Income Tax Act-
That surely describes the money that is in reserve.
-shall be included in computing his income under part I of the Income Tax Act for the taxation year in which the survey was so completed.
So that the net result is that, instead of a man who is having a ship built paying his income tax on the $10,000 he put in reserve in 1948, and then paying on $5,000 that he put in reserve in 1949, all this amendment does is to take the whole of the money set in reserve and tax it all in 1952. The minister has said that the intention of section 7 originally was that this money spent on surveys would not be taxable at all-and that was my understanding too. I believe that was the purpose: in effect, to allow this money put aside for surveys as operating expenses of a shipping company. Now, I believe, and it appears to me, that the Department of National Revenue has come along with this amendment in order to make those sums taxable. It appears to be directly opposite to the original intention of the act.
A person cannot make the same argument where the ship has been lost and the survey has not actually been carried out. In that case the money which is put in reserve is not going to be used for a survey and I think it is quite properly taxable; but the main point, it seems to me, is whether these moneys used for surveys are to be taxable or whether they are not. If they are to be taxable then certainly that is what this amendment achieves. It makes them taxable. If they are not to be taxable the section is wrong and subsection 2 which it proposes to add to section 7 should be deleted.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, the bill is very simple and I am afraid there is an attempt by my hon. friend to complicate it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I think I have had enough abuse here today and I object to that. I am not attempting to complicate it at all.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend may object if he likes but I am telling him that he is trying to complicate a simple matter.


Howard Charles Green: You should understand it-and that is the trouble. I have the floor and the minister has no right to make a statement of that kind. I am trying to make suggestions
Vessel Construction Assistance Act for the improvement of this measure. The minister seems to be very, very touchy about anyone making suggestions.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member wishes to object to the remarks made by the minister he may rise on a question of privilege. If he did, the words used by the minister are not offensive to the point where I should ask the minister to withdraw or apologize.


Howard Charles Green: No, they are just ridiculous.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If he in turn says that the minister is touchy this afternoon, the minister may perhaps feel that his feelings are hurt and there will be no end to this. Perhaps the minister should give his explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member feels that he has been offended by the words I have used I am happy to withdraw them.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no, I do not.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not put on this section the interpretation that my hon. friend puts on it and I hope that he will not misunderstand me when I say that I think he is trying to read into this section something that is really not there.
Section 7 of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act was devised to assist those shipbuilders who intended to be making quadrennial surveys or classification surveys; and it was there set out that they should get an exemption from taxation of the sums of money they would have to set aside over a period of years for the purpose of making those surveys. I understand those surveys cannot be made immediately but that it takes some time. The shipowner or the corporation owning the ship must be able to put some of those moneys aside in order to be ready for the survey when it takes place.
It has happened in the experience of the Department of National Revenue that two things occur. First is that the ship is lost or destroyed or, for some other reason, the survey did not take place at all. That being the case, it is only fair it seems to me that those moneys which were exempted from taxation should be put back into the profit and loss account of the taxpayer.


Howard Charles Green: I said that.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: But not that way.


Lionel Chevrier: Surely that is simple.
The next point relates to the first part where the survey has been completed and the corporation or shipbuilder has paid for it a lesser amount than has been put aside as reserve. Surely the difference between the two, whether it is $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000, should also be plowed back, recaptured and

Vessel Construction Assistance Act put into the profit and loss account so that taxation may be claimed on it.
Now, that is the intention of the section and that is what the Department of Justice advises me it means. That is what the legal officers of the Department of Transport say it means, and I have no alternative but to say that is what it is intended to mean. If my hon. friend can read something else in it I am sorry, but I disagree with him because that is all it is meant to do. It is not meant to assist the shipbuilding industry and neither is it meant to hurt it. All it intends to do is to recapture those amounts not used for the survey on which income tax has not yet been paid.


Howard Charles Green: I agree with the minister that where there is money left over it should be taxable. There is no question of that; but to achieve that result I suggest that there should be written into this section something to the effect, "which had not been spent on such survey", because the way the section reads now it says:
the aggregate amount of the deductions in respect of the vessel that have not previously been included in computing the taxpayer's income under part I of the Income Tax Act-
Now that takes in all of the reserves whether they have been spent or whether they have not been spent. It is not restricted to the surplus over and above what has been spent on the survey. By saying: "the aggregate amount of the deductions in respect of the vessel that have not been previously included in computing the taxpayer's income under part I of the Income Tax Act . . . and have not been spent on such surveys", or words to that effect, then you would achieve the objective the minister has in mind. I believe there is an error in the wording of the clause.


Lionel Chevrier: May I submit to my hon. friend that this amendment must be read in conjunction with section 7, which in turn must be read in conjunction with the Income Tax Act. Section 7 begins:
Notwithstanding paragraph (e) of subsection one of section twelve of the Income Tax Act a taxpayer may-
. . . claim as an exemption . . . And now there is added this amendment; and I take it that the Department of Justice together with our officials have so drafted this act that it will read as an integral part of the Income Tax Act. For that reason I do not see the need to include the words which my hon. friend refers to; because if they were included it might put a different meaning on the act.
That is the answer which I think I should make to my hon. friend now.


Howard Charles Green: There is no provision at all in here explaining about a surplus over and above what has been spent for a survey. There is no provision in subsection 2 to meet a situation of that kind. It merely deals with everything that has been set aside as a reserve. I would suggest that the minister have that point checked by his law officers just to be sure, because I am afraid of it. After all, these statutes are written in English and French and certainly, in this English version, there is nothing to show that the moneys that have been spent for the survey are not to be taxable. I think there has been an error made in the drafting.


Lionel Chevrier: I should tell my hon. friend that not only have counsel for the Department of National Revenue looked at this but counsel in the Department of Transport have, and as my hon. friend knows, the legislative committee in the Department of Justice have looked at it and have given it very careful consideration. I should not like to deal with this kind of statute which has to do with income tax. If it were any other matter, I would have no objection. This is a matter that has to do with national revenue, and for that reason I hope it will be possible for the house and my hon. friend to accept it as it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope I can say without offence that perhaps the two sea lawyers might let some of the rest of us get into this debate. I do not say that in any derogatory sense, but I thought the remark fitted in view of this discussion. The more this discussion goes on the more the question comes to my mind that I was asking myself when the discussion first started. Why is this legislation being introduced by the Minister of Transport at all? Why is it not income tax legislation and in the Income Tax Act? One of the difficulties the minister gets into, in trying to answer the questions of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, is that it is a matter that comes under national revenue or finance.
I recall that not many years ago an attempt was made to bring the income tax legislation up to date, and put it into consolidated form, so that one could find all the references to income tax in one piece of legislation. Now, we discover that outside of the Income Tax Act is this legislation which deals with an income tax matter. I suppose the minister will say that the lawyers in the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Transport have all approved, and therefore we are supposed to approve too. It does seem to me that the idea of rationalizing our legislation has been lost, and here we

have an income tax matter that should be not under the Minister of Transport at all but in the Income Tax Act itself.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that he have this section rechecked by the Department of National Revenue and by his own officials. He has explained that the intention is that these reserves should not be taxed if they are spent for surveys. With all respect to the minister, I am afraid that the way this section is worded the whole thing is taxed, including what has been spent for surveys. There is not such a rush about the bill that it could not be reconsidered by the department with that objection in mind. I would ask that that be done.


Lionel Chevrier: I can see no reason for rechecking the bill, because I gave my assurance to the house that I have gone over it carefully, and that three groups of lawyers have gone over this bill very carefully. They have given it special attention, and I am positive that it means exactly what it says. I cannot read into it the interpretation which my hon. friend reads into it. After all, if the amendment is read in conjunction with section 7 of this act, which in turn is read in conjunction with the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, there could only be one conclusion, and that is that the aggregate amount of the deductions in respect of the vessels that have not previously been included-that would be, I take it, the difference between those that were exempted and those that are not now exempted. It seems to me that the addition of the words "and had not been spent'' would add little or nothing. I am not objecting to the words being put in there, as they simply clarify the intention, but this bill has been given such careful consideration by these three groups that I hesitate to consent to the suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: In the final analysis it is the responsibility of the house. We cannot simply say that the legal officials in the department have drawn it up this way, and therefore it must be right. There is certainly nothing in that line the minister has quoted to show that the deductions are restricted to what was spent on the survey.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
68108-106i
Canadian National Railways-Auditors CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 40, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


William Moore Benidickson: I
think all members will now be familiar with this bill because it comes before the house annually by reason of the fact that, by statute, the auditors of the Canadian National Railways must be appointed annually by parliament. The bill is in the same form as we are accustomed to, except for the additional clause this year with reference to the revised statutes which are under compilation at the moment.
I might say that the bill also proposes to appoint the same firm of auditors that have been doing the auditing of Canadian National Railways for almost thirty years, with the exception of one year.


Howard Charles Green: It is exactly the same bill as we have had each year for many years?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport has just said, we are familiar with this bill because it is similar to the one that the government has been introducing every year for quite a long time. The parliamentary assistant indicated that the necessity for an annual bill of this nature is to be found in the statutes. The point I wish to raise may not seem to be of great consequence, but since reference has been made to what is in the statutes I ask why we do not follow precisely the procedure set out in the statute?
I find in section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, as contained in the statutes of 1936, this wording:
A continuous audit of the accounts of national railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons and annually reporting to parliament in respect of their audit. Their annual report shall call attention to any matters which in- their opinion require consideration or remedial action. They shall be paid by the national company such amounts as the governor in council shall from time to time approve.
Now, the question as to procedure I think is obvious. This section says that this annual appointment is to be made by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons. I should like to know why it is being done by a bill. The parliamentary assistant may say that the effect is the same, but what is
1654	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways-Auditors the point, after a precise course has been laid out for us in the statute, in not following it? I hope that the parliamentary assistant at some point-perhaps when we get into committee-can tell us why it is that we do not do what the statute says we should do, namely deal with this matter by means of a joint resolution of the two houses of parliament.
Another question that I should like to raise with the parliamentary assistant is one that is as familiar to him as is this bill to us. I refer to the question whether any further consideration has been given to having this audit of the affairs of the Canadian National Railways performed by the Auditor General. It seems to me that no satisfactory answer has yet been given by the government to the case that has been made repeatedly for this work to be done by the Auditor General. As I have said on previous occasions, I feel that the most effective case that was ever made for such a course Was made in the House of Commons some years ago by the hon. member who is now the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). I had thought that once he got into the cabinet, where his voice would be a little bit more effective than it was as a private member, he would have something to say about this point concerning which he spoke so strongly in the house when he was just a private member.
Since we have an Auditor General appointed by this parliament to survey the financial activities of the government and of a number of the agencies of the government, it seems to me that we would be well advised to appoint the Auditor General to do this work that we are required to see is done by virtue of the statute to which I have just referred.
There are one or two questions I wish to ask but perhaps they can wait until we get into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Auditors.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raises the point as to the reason for not following the procedure that is referred to in section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 25, 1936. The bill states that "notwithstanding the provisions of section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933", it is proposed to make the appointment by a bill in parliament. The reason for that course has been explained on several


occasions in the past. As I say, this bill comes to us every year. The reason is simply that a number of years ago that method was found to be too cumbersome. This achieves the same purpose. We have used this practice for a great number of years. As I told the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the bill this year is in form identical with that of other years, with the exception of the reference to the revised statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member leaves that point-and I presume he was leaving it-may I ask him to explain his statement that the other method is more cumbersome. Surely a joint resolution is actually simpler than a bill. The hon. member understands that I fully realize that the final result is the same and that it is only a point of procedure that I raise. However, I should be interested in his comment on the question.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the advice of the legal officers was that making a joint resolution required an approach to the sovereign in a different manner than the one required in this form; and in consequence this procedure was felt to be a much simpler and a more natural one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I will not pursue the matter further. Since this is such a simple bill perhaps the parliamentary assistant might consent not to ask for third reading today; and if he can get a more detailed explanation, we can have it later.


William Moore Benidickson: As to the other point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, may I say that we are, of course, as familiar with his suggestion as is the committee familiar generally with this bill. Annually, for some years, he has been making the suggestion that the Auditor General should be appointed the auditor for the Canadian National Railways. After study, I think it was indicated in a previous debate that it was considered that the Auditor General was probably eligible for an appointment as auditor; but it was also pointed out that one of the big advantages of having an audit made by the same firm, if satisfactory service has been rendered, is the fact that a continuous audit is being conducted.
The Canadian National Railways is an extremely intricate corporate organization. It is highly desirable that the auditor be familiar at all times with the rather complicated corporate relationships and subsidiaries of this large organization.
In past debates I think even the hon. member agreed that the expense of audit would not likely be less were the Auditor General

to be appointed. It is known to the committee that the interests of the Canadian National Railways are international and that portions of the audit must take place not only in the United States but in the United Kingdom and in France, as a result of the audit of Trans-Canada Air Lines. The particular firm which has been appointed by parliament in other years and is proposed now has international branches.
Another reason for appointing the same firm of auditors is that railway accounting is frequently subject to special legislative direction as, say, in the United States, as to the form of accounting that is done there. Hon. members know that even we in Canada have recently passed legislation under which the railways are directed to keep their accounts in a certain way. The present auditors are familiar with that legislation. In addition, there are complications as to the past bylaws of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways which govern accounting procedure. There is a requirement for familiarity with past orders in council and other legislation that applies to the accounting requirements of the railways. En masse these various things are of sufficient consequence that it is felt that a considerable break in experience and familiarity would take place if a change in the audit was made.
It has been estimated that it would take any firm of auditors several years to make an adequate acquaintance with the accounting system of the railway, and those who are familiar with it are of course in a much better position to spot quickly anything that needs attention. In past debates the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out that the Auditor General makes references to certain things in his report to parliament. I want to point out to hon. members that it is parliament that is appointing the auditors in this case. They do so annually, and under the statute the auditor is obligated to report to parliament. A senior representative of the auditors of the Canadian National Railways, and it includes the Trans-Canada Air Lines, as hon. members know, comes to parliament annually and subjects himself on behalf of the firm to examination by the members of the railways and shipping committee.
In addition to that, under the section, he is obligated, just as is the Auditor General, to point out to parliament, through this committee, anything that he thinks requires attention. And certainly, the years that I have been familiar with these reports and through my attendance at the railways and shipping committee, I cannot recall that any members of the committee ever suggested
Canadian National Railways-Auditors that there was any inadequacy in this method of appearances before a parliamentary committee and the reports that we got from the auditor when he comes to our committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant one other question? As he knows, we have learned within the past few weeks that in the case of the work of certain other auditors, the persons doing the investigating or auditing showed their work or their preliminary reports to the people being investigated. I refer to the firm of auditors in Montreal that made a report for the Minister of National Defence, but apparently showed that report to the department before it was made public. I refer also to the statement by the Prime Minister the other day on behalf of the Auditor General to the effect that he put draft copies of his recent report to parliament in circulation amongst the various departments last summer. It appears that has been a regular practice for some time, although I think it is fair to say that a number of us were amazed to learn that it has been going on. Can the parliamentary assistant say whether a similar practice is carried on in the relationship between George A. Touche and Company on the one hand and the Canadian National Railways on the other? I realize that one difference in the situation, as the parliamentary assistant pointed out, is that the Auditor General makes a report to parliament, and that report does include fifty or sixty paragraphs of comments on things that he has discovered in the course of his investigation. On the other hand, the report of George A. Touche and Company to parliament on the operation of the Canadian National Railways is usually just a certificate that he has seen everything he wanted to and found everything in order. There are no paragraphs in that report comparable to the paragraphs of comment that the Auditor General makes. As I say, that does make for one difference, but I should like to know whether the relationship between the firm of auditors and the Canadian National Railways is similar to this other relationship which has been revealed, namely, that the auditor seems to work along with the people he is investigating, and lets them know what his findings are before reporting to parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as has been explained in other years, the audit that is referred to in this appointment is a continuous audit. It is not in the nature of a complete check of every transaction of the Canadian National Railways; it is more in the nature of test checking; and certainly it has been reported in the past that one of the functions is to work in close collaboration
1656	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways-Auditors with the accounting departments of the Canadian National Railways in order to determine from time to time as to the adequacy of the internal audit control. Obviously just as soon as anything was found that was considered open to criticism in that continuous audit it would be pointed out immediately to the accounting section and to the chiefs of the accounting section who are of course responsible to see that there is a control over all the property, assets and revenue of the Canadian National Railways.
Whether or not the nature of that collaboration is similar to that mentioned by the hon. member is, I think, a proper question to be asked when the auditor himself appears before the committee on railways and shipping. Certainly nothing in the nature of subsidiary reports, beyond those which we get in parliament, is submitted to the Department of Transport.


Mr. Follwell:: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport has pointed out the advisability of having continuity in regard to the auditors who may be hired to do the auditing of the Canadian National Railways. He has pointed out that that is advisable on account of the difference in set-up in Canada and the United States and of the international arrangements that may exist with respect to large corporations such as the Canadian National Railways. Can the parliamentary assistant inform the committee and perhaps me especially whether there is any reason why this matter has to come before parliament each year? Why could it not be set up on the basis of a five-year period or some such period as that?


William Moore Benidickson: Well, it could, Mr. Chairman. I think this is just indicative of a desire to give parliament the closest possible control over the audit of as large a publicly-owned corporation as the Canadian National Railways. It simply just emphasizes the interest that parliament has in an organization of this kind. It assures the annual attendance of the auditor before the committee, and so forth. It also makes it very simple to make a change, if there are good reasons for making a change, despite the very numerous reasons for continuity that I have outlined.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Auditors.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this section carries may I ask the parliamentary assistant whether he can tell us why there is no clause 3 in this bill. That may not seem to be immediately relevant to clause 2, but the point I make is this. In all of these other


bills, such as the one we had just a momoi-ago, where there is a second clause that has the same effect as the first clause, reading-
This section shall come into force on the day that the revised statutes of Canada, 1952, come into force.
-and so on-there is also a third clause providing that when clause 2 comes into effect clause 1 is repealed. Now, in regard to this bill we do not have a clause 3, as we have had in all of these other bills which amend the revised statutes of Canada for 1952 it the same time as they amend the existing legislation. Can the parliamentary assistant explain the absence of a clause 3 from this bill?


William Moore Benidickson: No. I can simply make the explanation that was given on the bill that we have just dealt with and it is that these bills are very carefully examined by the law officers of not only our department but the Department of Justice and the House of Commons. And so far as the requirements in that respect are concerned, I must confess that I do not yet attempt to be specially critical of the style of bills that come to us for sponsorship. We are responsible for the policy therein and so on, but I am loath to quarrel with the law officers who deal with the drafting before they come into our hands for presentation to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant might obtain the explanation for the absence of a section 3 in this bill, and give it when third reading is called.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure, such grants not to exceed thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the projects and to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the above-mentioned purposes:	and to provide that all
officers, clerks and employees required for carrying out the provisions of the measure shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for taking the time of the house to make a few comments on this resolution. I listened to the Lilliputian statement by the minister, on the introduction of the resolution, and after listening to it and later reading it I am not quite sure of the complete purpose or scope of the measure.
So far as I could judge, the government still believes in a piecemeal approach to the problem of water conservation, to such an extent that it has indicated by this measure and by the minister's remarks that the conservation and development of water resources is to be the responsibility of two separate departments of government.
Furthermore the group to which I belong is disappointed to see that this resolution is not part of a national policy dealing with the conservation of soil, forest and water resources, brought about as a result of a dominion-provincial conference and through dominion-provincial co-operation. We are not alone in this respect. Many other voices in Canada have been raised suggesting the need for an over-all national policy, and expressing some disappointment with the government's present piecemeal approach to this most important question.
In support of the argument I am making I should like to read a portion of an editorial appearing in the Country Guide for November of 1952. 1 have said before in the house that the editor of this paper is well qualified to speak and to write about this most important question. He says this:
It is, therefore, of particular interest to Canadian agriculture that a delegation of provincial ministers of agriculture met the federal minister of agriculture not long ago, to request that the principles underlying the work of P.F.R.A. be applied across Canada. The delegation is also reported to have voiced grave concern over the fact that provincial governments tend to attach far less importance to the diversion and use of the waters of rivers and streams for agricultural purposes, than to the protection of cities and towns from the danger of flooding.
The truth seems to be that in most Canadian provinces the problem of adequate soil and water conservation is too serious to be solved entirely by the provinces. We urgently need a national soil and water conservation policy. Since 1935 an excellent beginning has been made within the Palliser triangle, the area to which the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation administration has been restricted. The value of the work already done is beyond calculation, but what Canada really needs is a general purpose, rather than a special purpose, policy and program.
We in this group heartily support the ideas expressed in that editorial. I would point out that it emphasizes two things in particular, the first of which is the need for an over-all national nolicy for soil, water and forest
Water Resources
conservation and, secondly, the necessity for extending the principles of P.F.R.A. to all provinces in Canada.
I trust that even this resolution may be a step in that direction on the part of the government. I must say that those of us in this group are glad of this evidence of growing government recognition of this most serious and important problem. The introduction of this resolution without doubt does provide a basis for some measure of co-operation between and assistance to the provinces.
I listened with keen interest to what has been said by previous speakers in the debate, particularly to the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), who is well acquainted with prairie problems, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who frequently in the house has shown his concern over water conservation as applied to the Palliser triangle, and particularly to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson).
I might say that while I do not agree with the hon. member for York West when he deals with the symbols of wealth-when he deals with gold-I listen with great enjoyment to his pedestrian eloquence when he speaks upon such subjects as the conservation of our natural resources and deals, shall I say, with problems concerning the conservation of real wealth.
I listened carefully to his speech and read it afterwards and in my view he made a definite contribution to the debate and to our knowledge on this subject. The facts he gave the house are worth rereading and careful study.
The policy of the C.C.F. is based upon the principles of co-operation and conservation. Year after year, session after session and speech after speech we have indicated our support for a policy which would deal with the conservation of human and natural resources. To succeed in that kind of policy there is an urgent necessity for planning.
I would draw to the minister's attention the fact that even in the introduction of this resolution the government is giving effect, perhaps in a limited degree, to policies which have been advocated by this group through the years both in the house and throughout the country. The resolution presents an opportunity for some logical development and planning as a result of dominion-provincial co-operation.
I represent a constituency which abounds in lakes, rivers and streams, a constituency with immense water resources. But even with all those resources the people I represent are very much concerned with certain problems related to the conservation and development of those water resources. They

Water Resources
are very concerned about flood control. They are very concerned at the present time about the shortage of water for power. I know that power does not come under this measure and I assure the minister that I will not get out of order. I shall leave the South Saskatchewan river dam entirely alone and I trust my remarks will be strictly in order.
They are concerned about the shortage of water suffered on occasion by certain cities, towns and small communities. They are very concerned about the erosion of the banks of various rivers by waters when in flood. They are concerned about these problems and these problems will continue to exist so long as governments fail to accept their responsibility by co-operating and planning to solve them in the very near future.
At this point I cannot resist taking advantage of the opportunity to bring to the attention of the house the fact that uncontrolled free enterprise must bear a large share of the responsibility for our defaced forests, our vanishing wildlife, our roaring floods, our dried-out ranges and the many gullied parts of this country. Uncontrolled free enterprise has carried on in Canada up to date without biophysical understanding or social responsibility. I think that is a fair statement to make of the conditions that exist at this time in this country.
Uncontrolled and greedy free enterprise has not only produced the physical conditions that exist, but in my opinion it has created a waster psychology that would have appalled our frugal forebears and which is regarded as lunacy by people in other lands who have given serious consideration to this problem for many years. When I say "waster psychology" I mean it because I think many of us in this country are most wasteful. We waste our power; we waste our water; we waste our soil; we waste our forests; we waste our tin cans; we waste our waste paper; we waste our rubber and we waste many other things.


An hon. Member:: Horses.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because we have no over-all policy governing the conservation of natural resources, a policy which realizes that the natural resources of this country will be depleted in time, we have that result. If we spent as much time advertising the value of conservation as we spend in advertising the dangers of B.O. the Canadian people would become conscious of the seriousness of this question.
Free enterprise and industrial society has produced a state of mind on the part of many people who live in the larger centres 
that simply fails to appreciate the basic facts of our existence. At this point I should like to quote from an interesting article by Christopher Morley in "Streamlines" as follows:
We hear about the agricultural problem of soil erosion; hillsides denuded of fertile topsoil . . . or great regions of middle western richness scoured off by dust storms. Surely not less serious is the matter of mind erosion; the dust storms of daily excitement and of continual triviality can easily blow away the sensitive topsoil of the spirit. The result is a barren and shallow nervous credulity.
I quote that because I think it indicates the state of mind that prevents people having a full appreciation of the seriousness of certain basic problems such as this one v.'hich face the Canadian people at this time. In our opinion only action by governments can repair the damage which has been done to our natural resources during the last fifty years under uncontrolled free enterprise. Therefore, I repeat that we in this group are glad that the minister has introduced this resolution and we offer our support.
The hon. member for York West has said that water shortage is a North American problem. This growing shortage of water affects nearly every community. This shortage of water is occasioned by abnormal runoff, increased industrial use, unnecessary evaporation and lack of forest coverage. These things are increasingly affecting our stores of water from year to year and because of this situation the future of many communities in Canada is threatened.
Surface water has three channels of escape-surface drainage, seepage into the ground and evaporation. I shall not deal with these because I think the hon. member for York West covered that aspect of the matter when he spoke the other evening. But I do want to direct the attention of the house to another cause of increased and abnormal run-off to which possibly some people have not given consideration.
This is due to millions of roof tops, the increasing area of paved street and highways and airports and the tremendous urge today to cover the earth with concrete and asphalt. This has created a great problem in the areas surrounding large centres of population because of the abnormal run-off. Large amounts of water are permitted to escape unnecessarily which could be utilized under an over-all policy of conservation.
The hon. member for York West referred to the lowered water tables, losses through evaporation, increased use of water for industrial purposes and the pollution of our streams. Evidence of this can be found in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I

shall not take the time to deal with this in detail, but I should like to quote an authority which does indicate the seriousness of the situation. I should like to quote from "Water Conservation Notes" for September, 1952, by J. L. Van Camp, general manager, Canadian Forestry Association, as follows:
Professors A. F. Coventry and J. R. Dymond, reporting on "Water, a National Treasure", in the book "Conservation and Nature Activities", give data on a survey which was made in King township in York county, Ontario in the mid 1930's. From that township they report that of the 200 miles of permanent streams which originally ran at all seasons of the year, this total has been reduced to less than 30 miles when the survey was made. At that time also, 17 per cent of the wells in the township went dry each summer.
A survey made in an adjacent area between Toronto and Dundas showed that 672 of all streams in an area of 13,000 square miles no longer flowed continuously. On some of them, now dry or reduced to a meagre flow in summer, the remains of mills and dams indicated that water was formerly available in sufficient quantity to provide power for grist and sawmills.
Further data showing the undesirable difference between peak flood and peak drought conditions is given for the west Humber river near Toronto. During a flood in March, 1942, when nearly an inch and a half of rain fell in 48 hours, the west Humber was carrying four thousand cubic feet a second past a given point. Almost half of the entire amount of water which fell was in lake Ontario within 12 hours. The water was opaque with sediment, and from one measurement it was shown that 2,700 tons of soil an hour was being carried into the lake.
I could go on at greater length but I think that that demonstrates the great need for an over-all consideration of this problem by federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is a complete fallacy that industrial civilization can continue to produce a permanently higher standard of living. None of the industrial nations have maintained high standards of living without access to adequate areas of productive land. As a matter of fact, European industry has been supported for years by food produced in America. In Canada industrial expansion is of recent date but even in that short period there is evidence that we are consuming and abusing our natural resources at an increasingly alarming rate.
At this point I would ask the minister a question and ask him to answer when he replies in closing this debate. I consider, as do the members of this group generally, that our snowfall in Canada is a billion dollar crop, and I have been interested in reading of some studies that have been made with respect to the conservation of snow. I do not know if this resolution will provide for further studies in that direction or whether
Water Resources
it will provide for giving application to certain ideas for the conservation of snow. I understand that experiments have been carried on throughout the years in the United States, and I understand by one engineer in Ottawa, which indicate that you can conserve snow and save abnormal run-off.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a great loss of snow or water on the prairies through abnormal run-off occasioned by heat. The water, flowing over frozen surfaces, has not an opportunity to penetrate into the subsoil. Experiments have been conducted, I understand, with a view to creating an icy surface on the snow which will prevent excessive evaporation. Some experiments to date offer almost breath-taking possibilities. By spreading carbon particles on the snow in a mechanical way, either by ground vehicles or by helicopters, it is possible to produce an icy surface and tremendously reduce evaporation so that a much greater quantity of water coming from the snow goes into the soil. I would like the minister to tell the house when he speaks at the conclusion of this debate if anything has been done in that connection in his department.
I do not want to speak at too great length, Mr. Speaker, but before concluding I wish to say a few words about the administration of water conservation policies in Canada. The agricultural institute of Canada, I understand, made a submission to the government last year and at that time made reference to this legislation which was forecast in the speech from the throne. The brief presented by the agricultural institute of Canada contended that any conservation of water that affected the soil should be under the administration of the Department of Agriculture. I have read the brief very carefully, having been interested in this subject for years, and I think the point of view expressed by the agricultural institute of Canada is quite sound. I think that the administration of water resources should be in the hands of people who are close to the farmers, and close to the people who are going to use the water.
Furthermore, I find that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports the agricultural institute of Canada and I would like to quote briefly from a letter I received on December 12 from Mr. C. G. Groff, secretary-treasurer. This is what he had to say:
In view of the fact that there is now a bill before the house with respect to water conservation, we discussed the matter at our executive meeting just after the conference a week ago. Our attitude is that all conservation matters, having as their ultimate objective the conservation of the soil from which the food of the people is produced. should be carried out and administered

Water Resources
under the Department of Agriculture, in co-operation with the various provincial departments of agriculture. We had before us a resolution passed by the agricultural institute of Canada and our executive endorsed this resolution.
There you have the scientific body concerned with agriculture expressing an opinion and you have the organization representing the farmers themselves supporting that opinion. I find further evidence to support that opinion in the country and I wish to quote from an editorial appearing in the November issue of the Country Guide entitled "Sensible Conservation Policy". This is what the editorial has to say:
The ministers might well have gone much further in their representations. They could well have urged that in any national or provincial program involving soil and water conservation and development, the responsibility for administration should rest in departments of agriculture, both provincial and federal. We already have too many examples of divided responsibility within provincial governments, including the governments of Manitoba and Alberta, which have led to inefficiency and lack of progress. If we are not to lose valuable time, and money which we cannot afford to squander, it is imperative that all senior governments in this country agree on one important administrative principle. The principle is that whenever conservation policies are applied, either to land or water for the benefit of agriculture, such policies and programs should be planned, administered and developed, by those who are trained and employed to serve agriculture. Too many millions of dollars have been lost, in this and other countries, for us to entrust these primary responsibilities to engineers, indispensable as they are. Similarly, central administrative officers, in departments other than agriculture, are too far away from the soil and its needs, and from the farmer and his problems, to fully realize that these are the really basic factors involved.
The experienced agricultural administrator, agronomist, soil scientist, agricultural economist, and agricultural engineer, as well as the nonagricultural engineer, are each essential to a well-planned and effectively developed program. Surely, simple logic demands that the men and departments designated to carry the heaviest responsibility for the execution of any policy involving agricultural land, or water for such land, should be those specializing in agricultural matters.
Mr. Speaker, I most wholeheartedly support those contentions and those representations. In my opinion, if this legislation is to be effective it must be accompanied by co-operative research and it is imperative that research be extended from the natural sciences to the social sciences; for, if a conservation program of any type is to succeed, they are inseparable. Again, quite as necessary as research is education. To cope with research problems on a national basis we require the education of tens of thousands of Canadians and tens of thousands of Canadian children. However, in my opinion, research and education are futile unless they result in an action program that sinks well within the grass roots of our democracy, and
[Mr. Herrldge.l
with this program should be associated a program to stop waste of all types in Canada in every field of human activity. If it is to be successful, Mr. Speaker, implementation of this resolution requires that there be co-operative action between Canadians and all levels of government.
We certainly have got to plan if we are going to conserve our great water resources in Canada -by good forest management, grass cover, check dams, and other methods to prevent excess run-off, loss of water and flood damage. Our economy is dependent on water to furnish cheap transportation, heat, power, light, agriculture, forestry, water for our homes, for health and for recreation. There is no question but that it is the duty of this parliament to see that ample and good supplies of water are provided in Canada for this generation and generations to come.
In conclusion I wish to say that we in this group support the principle and the purpose of this measure and will do our best to co-operate with the government in giving it satisfactory effect.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wenlworih):: It is not my intention to take much time of the house this afternoon but I do wish to take a short while to commend the government for bringing forth this resolution to assist in the conservation of water resources. When the minister spoke first on this measure, he mentioned the Shand dam on the Grand river, which happens to be just north of the riding which I represent. He also mentioned construction of the Luther marsh dam, which is also in the Grand river conservation project. I am very glad that he announced a decision had been made by this government to assist in the construction of the Glen Allan dam on the Conestogo river. I want to commend him for it. The Shand dam was started in 1939, and between 1939 and 1950 there was very little done in the way of helping to control the floods in this area. Having lived beside the Grand river, I am alive to the dangers of the Grand river when it is in flood. The Shand dam was not sufficient to control the flood waters of the Grand, and hence the Luther marsh dam was built. It is now found that that is not sufficient and the Conestogo or Glen Allan dam is being built.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we should first try to decide the difference between flood control and water conservation. Dams will control flooding, but more than dams are necessary for water conservation. It would seem that there is, then, a duplication of services here between the Department of

Resources and Development and the Department of Agriculture. We have now a number of expert engineers employed in the Department of Agriculture under the P.F.R.A. It seems to me that the services of these expert engineers could be used to help out on this flood control work.
Water conservation should be carried out under the Department of Agriculture. I see nothing in this resolution that would show there was anything actually to be done with regard to water conservation. I should like to qupte from the resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure, such grants not to exceed thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the projects and to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the above-mentioned purposes; and to provide that all officers, clerks and employees required for carrying out the provisions of the measure shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
There is no mention there, Mr. Speaker, of co-operation with the provinces in connection with water conservation. In his speech the minister referred to the bill as an authority providing a legislative basis for federal assistance for water conservation projects of a major character across Canada. It would appear, therefore, that the measure which this resolution precedes is a measure more for the control of floods than it is for water conservation. We had hoped it would include some manner of co-operation with provincial governments to go further than just the control of floods.


Mr. Winters:: It does.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am glad to hear the
minister say that. As I said before, there is nothing in the resolution that would lead one to believe that it does. As the minister said, it is related to major projects across Canada.
I have tried to practise conservation during the number of years I have been on the farm. Water conservation would call for small dams, probably one on each farm. Conservation of the soil means the cultivation of the soil in a manner to control wastage. It requires reforestation of some slopes to control run-off. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) just mentioned conserving the snow. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know of no better way of conserving snow than planting trees to hold the snow.
As I stated at the outset, I do not intend to take long at this stage. I do want to point out that we must differentiate between flood control and water conservation. I feel that the water conservation part could be
Water Resources
handled under the Department of Agriculture, when we have experts now in the P.F.R.A. doing a good job in that line.


Frank Sidney Follwell: I am
sure that the members on all sides of the house, Mr. Speaker, join in supporting the minister in moving forward this resolution. As has been pointed out, the resolution is to authorize grants to assist in the conservation of water resources. I believe we all agree that is something that has been long overdue. In many of the provinces, particularly the province of Ontario, several surveys have been made on rivers. The Ganaraska survey has been completed, and steps have been taken to conserve the water and stop the rapid run-off. A survey of the Moira river in the county of Hastings, in my constituency, has been completed and the Moira valley authority has been set up. This authority has jurisdiction over a section of the Moira river that takes in 1,060 square miles of territory.
This Moira valley conservation authority has been very active. Under their jurisdiction a $40,000 dam has been completed at Deloro for the purpose of holding back an amount of water for conservation, and also to stop flooding. I believe the hon. member who just spoke, if he reflected for a moment, would agree that the purpose of a dam is twofold. First, it is for conservation, and second, for flood control. I believe these two purposes go hand in hand. The Moira valley conservation authority has encouraged the construction of what may be termed farm ponds. These have been found quite advantageous, and though a pond may sound like a small body of water, a number of them spread through the length and breadth of a township or a county would account for many millions of gallons of water. The Moira valley authority has issued a circular containing instructions on farm ponds, the method of building them and the vital necessity for them.
Now, as I say, I am sure all members join in supporting this resolution, because without a doubt water is the greatest asset that we have in this bountiful dominion of ours. Water is so common that we sometimes forget the value of it. It is extremely cheap. Actually it is cheaper than dirt. You can purchase water which you obtain by turning on a tap in your residence, for as little as a nickel a ton, sometimes. Those hon. members who have found it necessary to buy soil, particularly topsoil, know that you have to pay up to $10 for dirt.

Water Resources
It is only when we have a shortage that we who seem to have an abundance consider the necessity for preserving and conserving water. It will be recalled that, a year or so ago, New York had a water shortage; and there they went to the extreme of asking the male citizens of the great city of New York to shave only once a day or to forget shaving one day in the week in order to try to conserve water.
Water is continuing to be more and more in demand for the purpose of producing electrical energy. I think the minister has in mind the necessity for the preservation of this great asset of ours, particularly for electrical purposes, when he brings forward this resolution. As has been pointed out, we do not yet know just what is in the bill; but I am sure that what is there will be of great benefit to Canada, as is all the legislation that the minister of this particular department brings to parliament.
By drying up marshes and lakes we have destroyed the homes and breeding grounds of useful waterfowl and fur bearers. Being charged with the responsibility of protecting our resources including fur-bearing animals, I am sure that the minister has this point in mind also when he brings forward this bill for the conservation of water.
It seems that one of the reasons why our water is not benefiting the land in the way it should is that, over the years, we have seen fit to harvest the crop of forest products without any concern as to holding back the water or as to the way in which trees act to conserve in the land the water that should be there. Consequently we have a rapid run-off; and this rapid run-off takes with it the valuable two inches of topsoil and deposits it in the rivers and in the lakes.
We in Canada are well endowed with water resources. We have the great lakes and inland lakes. We have 228,307 square miles of fresh water within our boundaries. Lake Superior forms part of our southern border; it is the largest body of fresh water in the world. We know that we have great rivers; and of these, of course, we should take proper care. We have the Mackenzie, our longest river, which stretches for 2,514 miles from Great Slave lake to the Arctic ocean. We have the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes which provide a shipping waterway 2,338 miles in length from the strait of Belle Isle to the head of lake Superior. Our sea coast is one of the longest of any country in the world, with 14,820 miles of mainland sea frontage and 34,650 miles of island frontage.
One might think that this resource would be sufficient to minister to all our human

needs. There is no doubt that it is and will be sufficient for the great population we hope to have here in a few years. But it will only be so if we take proper conservation measures such as those which I am sure the minister is going to propose in his bill.
I just rose, Mr. Speaker, for these few moments in order to commend the minister and to assure him that I believe he has the active support of all the members in the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
A. Earl Catherwood: make no apologies for entering this debate at this time because this measure is one of extreme importance to us all. The time that is taken up to discuss the measure in the house will be well spent, and we shall get from it valuable information which will be of interest to us all.
When we heard the speech from the throne read by His Excellency the Governor General we were pleased to note that the government intended to bring before the house a measure to provide for conservation of water resources. We were doubly pleased when the minister introduced the resolution stating:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources-
On January 30 the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) moved that the house go into committee to discuss the terms of the resolution. We regret that we cannot expand the resolution to include soil conservation, because it is very important to our national life, and particularly as soil and forest conservation are so closely allied to and associated with water conservation in this country.
As the minister pointed out in his opening remarks, the federal government did participate with the province of Ontario in a project of this kind on the Grand river and the Shand dam which was mentioned by the hon. member for Brant-Went worth (Mr. Charlton) this afternoon. In participating with the provinces on this project the federal government worked in close co-operation with the municipalities and this undertaking contributed a great deal toward lessening the danger of flood conditions that had been gradually developing to an increasing extent in that area year by year.

The government also received some valuable information from the experiments carried on there, information which will be of great value to them as this plan progresses. We were happy that this plan was broadened to include further drainage work on the Luther marsh project in the same drainage area, and now the dam on the Conestogo river, which is a tributary of the Grand. That is the third step that will assist materially in overcoming the menace that constantly threatens each spring the life and property of that very densely populated area of southern Ontario. That area is very valuable from an agricultural point of view as well. We in that section all realize the value that has come from this experiment that has been carried on as a co-operative effort in that section of Canada.
The importance of this resolution was brought forcibly to the attention of the house by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), who spoke in this debate on Friday evening last, as reported at page 1512 of Hansard. I should like to read a brief quotation from the hon. member's remarks. He said:
For instance, the production of a ton of rolled steel requires the consumption of 110,000 gallons of water. The production of a ton of rayon yarn takes 250,000 to 400,000 gallons of water; a barrel of aviation gasoline takes from 1,050 gallons of water, if made from the natural product, to as much as 15,000 gallons of water if made synthetically.
Further on he says:
Our North American cities use approximately between 150 gallons and 160 gallons per capita per day.
The hon. member for York West is an engineer, and we all know that he is looking at it from the practical point of view. We would all derive great benefit from reading the entire speech that he made at that time.
I feel that this bill is a step in the right direction. I hope it is the beginning of a much wider policy that will embrace soil and forest conservation as well. There is increasing evidence of late that the provinces of this country are beginning to recognize the need for a greatly enlarged conservation project on a national basis. In this regard I was very glad to hear the minister say that it must be undertaken primarily through the provinces with the federal government working in the role of co-ordinating agency with the provinces in their assistance by contributions from the federal treasury. This effort calls for close co-operation and sound planning between the provinces and the Department of Resources and Development. The general and over-all picture from the federal point of view must be closely harmonized
Water Resources
with the immediate needs of the various provinces. In this manner we can possibly work out a system by which we can carefully guard those resources which we must pass on to those who are yet unborn, and who in their turn we trust will be true guardians of these great assets that we possess.
Following the first world war there was an attempt made by government agencies to adopt practices similar to what we are discussing today. However, their recommendations were presented and no action was taken. They made a really valuable study and research at that time. But during the last twenty-five years we find that all progressive countries are increasingly concerned about the rapid growth of population which tends to exploit the resources we have, and in many cases unwisely. Our great neighbour to the south, which I think has about one-half of the industrial production of the world, is beginning to be seriously disturbed about the rapidity with which their underground waters are lessening to an incredible degree. European nations for many years past have recognized the wasting assets that nature has provided, and Canada with her yet undeveloped areas is in a much more important position when it comes to legislation of this kind, because of those undeveloped resources. There is a great need for conserving them, and we as a young nation should do it.
Many books have been written, many speeches have been made, many newspaper articles and editorials have been published -and I hope many more will be published- along this very line, so that we should be able to get our people more concerned about the growing need of this important work.
Since the formation of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations these policies have been brought closely to the attention of the people of the civilized world by the emphasis placed on the close relationship that exists between conservation, water management and our economic well-being. The unfortunate part is that we have not been able to translate these factors into effective action whereby nations will work together in the interests of all the people. We in this country unfortunately have not as yet been able to work in close enough co-operation with the provinces on this matter. I think the time is coming, and I trust it will, when we can overlook these petty differences that we have in the interests of the common good of our resources in this country. Fifty years ago Canada had approximately 5 million people. Today we have over 14 million people, an increase of

Water Resources
something like 300 per cent in our population, but our potential productivity has remained the same as it was at that time.
Someone has said that there is a lot of ruin in a nation. I think that is very true of our natural resources. Our forest and water conservation methods must be closely interwoven. The simple fact remains that while science and mechanization have increased our industrial production and agricultural production, nevertheless these gains have been made, we must agree, at the expense of lessening our water supply. The responsibility for this situation is largely due to our individual effort, but I feel that action in this regard must definitely be taken by our governments. It is a matter of great interest to us that some time ago the provincial ministers of agriculture met with our federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to discuss some of these problems. They faced the grave concern at that time that the governments of the various provinces were more inclined to attach a greater significance to the dangers of flood conditions to the towns and villages, than to make a careful study of the basic problems and define the difficulties at the source, as well as make a careful study of matters which would give protection at the source of the water supply.
It is quite possible that a large-scale plan of reforestation and a system of diversion of our rivers and streams, similar to projects that have been undertaken by P.F.R.A., could be carried out very effectively in this regard.
In that part of the country in which I have lived in recent years, we have been given ample proof of the devastating results which can be achieved when rampaging waters are uncontrolled. We have in that area a very capable conservation commission, to which reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton). Then, too, if the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Macdonald) were permitted to speak in the house on this measure 1 believe he would say that the conservation commission has done a very excellent job in the capacity in which it has been working.
Nevertheless their tasks are definitely made more difficult because of the fact that they do not have the financial assistance that would permit them to carry out an extensive conservation plan in that area, such as they would have liked to achieve. As a result of the valuable experience we have had in that section, I would have no hesitation in supporting the policy the minister is now advocating. I would approve any policy which would give similar results to every section in Canada.
It is a matter of great importance however that the administration of this should very definitely remain primarily with the provinces, working in close conjunction with the federal Department of Resources and Development. Then, further, it should also be a policy which would embrace soil, water and forest conservation. No one of these projects can be worked effectively if it is operated separately, because it is necessary that all three be embraced to have an effective conservation program.
It is essential that the handling of this project should be done definitely in co-operation with the provinces, under the direct jurisdiction of capable experts in agricultural matters, as well as capable engineers who understand conservation projects. These should include men who are well skilled in this work both from the federal and provincial points of view.
These suggestions may lay a framework for what would at least be a beginning of something that will need continuous and close study for all time. This is only the beginning. If we are to meet the challenge which faces us increasingly from year to year, we must proceed from this point. Speaking from an agricultural point of view, Canada has today better than three-quarters of a million families engaged in agriculture. These families have a great stake in this country in the form of land and equipment. It is a stake which means a great deal to the people involved.
I trust therefore that this measure dealing with water conservation will meet with the wholehearted approval of all hon. members. I trust parliament will recognize the importance and magnitude, and the necessity for enlarging the terms of reference so as to include forest and soil conservation as well, and that this measure may be merely the beginning of a new era that will recognize these basic and essential facts, that our very existence depends upon the maintenance of an adequate supply of these God-given resources which we, in our time, must conserve and which we in our time must not destroy.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the others who have already spoken in this debate, and to commend the minister upon having introduced this legislation. On other occasions I have had something to say about the conservation of resources, and at this time I want to emphasize some of the points that I think are fundamental and important.
I believe it was Mark Twain who is credited with having said that a lot of people talk about the weather, but nobody does a great

deal about it. I think that is true of conservation. There has been considerable talk about it, but there has not been a great deal done. I hope this is the beginning of a program that will have long and far-reaching effects.
Hon. members will know that the paint and varnish industry have a slogan that says: Save the surface and you save all. I think that might well be applied to our conservation program, because if the top six inches of soil are lost we will find ourselves in a desperate situation, indeed. Our food supplies would diminish very rapidly.
In connection with the program being undertaken it is most essential that effective co-ordination among federal, provincial and municipal governments be brought about. I want to point out right here that in 1939 the municipalities were collecting 30 cents from the tax dollar, while today they collect only 10 cents. The owners of real property, both in the city and in the country, are finding themselves taxed beyond capacity. We realize, too, that these very people who own real property are the backbone of the country. They are the producers, the labourers and the workmen. So that no longer can the burden be placed entirely upon the municipalities.
It is commendable that the federal government is going to co-operate with provincial governments to the extent of 37J per cent each of the cost of these projects. It was only yesterday that we heard a good deal about the difficulties in connection with the South Saskatchewan river project, and the dam proposed in that area. While these dams are spectacular, so far as Ontario is concerned they are not fundamental to a water conservation project. The place to save water is where it falls.
Water is also a forest problem. In old Ontario it is estimated that about 9 per cent of the land is now covered with forest. In other words 91 per cent of the forest has been removed. Those who have given some study to the subject are of the opinion that in Ontario at least 15 per cent of the area should be forested. I think we should go further than that and say that on an average 20 per cent of the area in old Ontario might well be put back to forest.
One of the counties in southwestern Ontario has its forest coverage reduced to 3 per cent, and the problem of water supply for cities and towns, as well as in farm wells, is becoming very acute in those areas. If we continue at the present rate in the Canadian west I am told, by those who know the subject, that 100 years from now we will have 6,000 square miles of desert. The area is expanding instead of decreasing in spite
Water Resources
of the efforts of P.F.R.A. and other agencies which are at work there. Today all over the world we hear of food shortages and populations increasing at a fast rate, yet not another acre of workable land is being added.
There is another problem to be considered in connection with land taken out of cultivation and put into forests. The immediate municipality will lose a certain amount of taxes. Also this marginal land may be producing small amounts of food of one kind and another and the farmer whose land is taken out of production will find his income reduced. Care must be exercised in the administration of this to provide income to take the place of that derived from land taken out of agricultural production.
We hear a great deal today about deficiency diseases because of a lack of certain elements in our food. This should be part of any conservation program. In many areas certain elements are missing from the land and they have not been replaced. Consequently we are faced with this problem of deficiency diseases, not only in connection with humans but in connection with animals as well. One of the statesmen of the United States once said: Show me an eroded soil and I will show you an eroded people. That is true today in some parts of the United States.
The minister and many hon. members have received copies of a brief from the agricultural institute of Canada which contains a well-thought-out program which might well be considered. They point out that there is a possibility of overlapping in government departments which would add to the cost but which would add nothing to the net result. We must avoid that at all costs, as the cost of government is far too high as it is.
At some time or other nearly every agricultural paper in the United States has referred to the fact that some of the great dams which have been built in that country are faced with the problem of silting. Many times they just try to find a solution for that problem by building another dam. I am going to suggest to the minister that one of the valleys in old Ontario be brought under this legislation and used as an experiment to demonstrate the good results that can be obtained from conservation practices rather than the building of dams.
Twenty per cent of the area should be forested. Contour farming should be practised when the land lends itself to that type of land use. Steep hillsides should be grassed so that heavy rainfall will not wash the soil into the valleys and rivers. Good farm management should be practised. In order to get good results these practices should be

Water Resources
pinpointed on individual farms because a practice that will work on one farm may not work on another a short distance away. No over-all practice can be adopted as a rule of thumb to follow. If all this is linked up with the work being done by the Department of Agriculture, the results should be good.
The construction of farm ponds is good and this practice should be encouraged. I should like to see all this done just as an experiment. I believe this experiment is being made on the Brandywine river near Wilmington, Delaware, in the United States and more information could be obtained on what is happening there from the Country Gentleman of February 1953.
While I am on the subject of conservation I should like to point out that the soils committee of the Middlesex crop improvement association in my own county are carrying out a very worth-while work in connection with individual farms scattered throughout the county. They are demonstrating how soil can be conserved. A good deal of credit is due to the chairman of that committee, Mr. John A. Stewart, and his agricultural assistant, Mr. Ken Pretty. As I say, they are doing a most worth-while work.
People in Ontario welcome this because they realize that money is being raised in the central provinces by means of federal taxes to be spent elsewhere in Canada. They realize that under this legislation at least a certain portion will be spent in the provinces where the money is raised.
It is most essential that good public relations be maintained between the various departments and the farming people. Farmers resent governments at any level coming in and taking their land for any purpose. It is most important that there be good publicity and good public relations maintained if this policy is going to be worked out to the satisfaction of all concerned. We have in my county the Fanshawe dam part of the Thames valley authority program. There is bound to be some dissatisfaction. As far as it is humanly possible the people who own the land should be dealt with rather than to have some construction company come along and say, "We have nothing to do with it, just talk to somebody else." That sort of thing leaves a wrong impression.
The farm people should be assured that, if they enter into some long-term plan to reforest their lands, they will remain in ownership of those lands. We hear a lot today about the state taking over the ownership of all means of production. I point that out because the party to my left apparently think and believe that is the way we should

go; but I am unalterably opposed. How can you have incentive to improve and bring into being these conservation practices, which will return their profits to the farmer over a long period of years, if they say: Oh, well, twenty years from now the state is going to take over the whole blessed business so why should I worry about it or why should my children worry about it? There must be some knowledge, on the part of the people who are going to be affected, that they will own the land for a long period of time.
After all, conservation Is really what the Conservative party stands for not only in politics and economics, but in agriculture as well. To point out a few of the thoughts of other people on this matter I have before me some clippings from various publications of one kind and another. I am not going to use a lot of the material but I will take a paragraph here and there from some of them. The first one is from a Royal Bank letter of February, 1949:
In old Ontario, according to the report of the royal commission on forestry, 1947, forest cover has shrunk to 9-7 per cent. Groups which have studied the question estimate that up to 8.000 square miles, or 5,120,000 acres, of waste land should be returned to forests; the commission itself is convinced that at least two and a half million acres of old Ontario might profitably be reforested.
Another extract I have reads:
Erosion, the washing and blowing away of topsoil still goes on. Poor land management and poor forestry practices are pouring wealth down the drain. Our rivers are choked with silt and soil.
The world is spotted with cemeteries of agricultural neglect. There is Greece, once the world's cultural and military leader. Twenty centuries have passed, and today Greece is reduced to a barren nation. Only two per cent of her original topsoil is left. Once, six out of every ten acres were forestland; today one out of twenty is forest. Centuries of cutting and burning, careless farming and overgrazing have reduced this country to an importer nation. The land cannot support her people; Greece imports half of its bread, three-fourths of its rice. Greece slipped from the throne of nations in near pace with the slipping away of her productive lands.
It is estimated that it takes anywhere from 300 to 1,000 years to produce one inch of topsoil. The Toronto Globe and Mail of December 19, 1952, comments on the throne speech as follows:
There is a good deal of merit in this point. Soil, water and forest conservation are almost inseparable. If there is to be conservation at all, it must of necessity integrate all three phases. Agriculture depends on soil and water, and both of these derive protection from woodland. There can be large and spectacular dams, but no conservation of soil or water where it is needed.
And further on:
But what is important in their protest is that the new program be not confined to building big

dams. Unless there is grass roots soil conservation, too, these dams will become mere monuments to folly.
My next quotation is also from a Royal Bank letter, dated August, 1946:
In one small area in Ontario there are 75 farm buildings classed as fair or poor, while 44 buildings have been abandoned or levelled, every one an unwritten story of hope, toil and disappointment. In some cases the land was good to start with, but it was farmed without foresight. The plow made it ready for carrying away by wind and water. Productivity declined. Income decreased. Sons and daughters went away to cities. A farm which housed, fed and clothed a big family only a few years ago supports no one, and is a menace to its neighbours. Once it deposited money in banks, bought machinery, was the mainstay of local retail business and a customer of the mail order houses. It helped feed cities. Today it buys nothing, pays no taxes, produces nothing to add to the national income or the welfare of the country, feeds no one.
Look westward. In 1941 there were more than 4 million acres of abandoned farms in the prairie provinces, an acreage which, at the long time average yield of 15-6 bushels per acre, might produce 62,400,000 bushels of wheat a year if the land had been saved.
The London Free Press on January 15, 1953, also commenting on this resolution, states:
Canada is embarked on a vast program for the development of her natural resources. The picture is bright and attractive. It could easily become dark and disastrous. Now is the time to set about the provision of adequate protective measures for all our natural resources. A long-term conservation policy covering the whole of the dominion is needed.
Now, gentlemen, I want to support the resolution and I hope the minister will take into consideration the many factors that will come before him, and that we will proceed with this measure.


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment or two in support of this resolution and to commend the minister and his department for the work that has already been done.
In the section of the country which I represent we have possibly the most famous of these conservation schemes. Situated on the edge of my riding we have the Shand dam. This is a three-purpose dam built first as a flood control measure to protect the cities of Galt, London and Brantford, and as a means of conservation because the area surrounding the huge pond that is created by this dam has been almost completely reforested. It supplies water during the summer months to flush out the river and thus greatly assists in the disposal of sewage from those cities which I have mentioned. That dam has worked with the greatest of success. It was so successful that a second dam known as the Luther dam, has been built farther up the Grand river.
Water Resources
This is a different situation than the Shand dam which held back the water in a deep pond in a comparatively small area. The dam that has been constructed on the Luther marsh has at no place a depth of over ten or fifteen feet and I imagine that the average depth would perhaps be three or four feet. Peat bog is the principal soil flooded, and last spring the vegetation began to grow through and out of the water. To look at it you would hardly know that it actually was a pond. This dam was supposed to assist in flushing out the river to the extent of about one-quarter of the effect achieved by the Shand dam. Because of the tremendous area that was exposed to the sun, evaporation took place and most of the water stored in that pond evaporated. The farmers in that district felt that this was the best thing that could have happened, because instead of having hot dry winds blowing over their farms during the summer and drying out their crops they had a moist breeze which encouraged growth on the surrounding farms to a great extent. This is easily understood when we realize that a single deciduous apple tree will give off some tons of water during a hot summer day. Thus it is easy to see that, if we encourage reforestation and the ponding of water, we are going to put tons of moisture into the air which covers the farms; otherwise this moisture would not be there. Through a study of history and geography one can see that deserts have occurred in the areas where the trees have been cut. Knowing the huge quantities of water put into the air by each tree, one can understand why these hot dry winds which result from the cutting down of trees cause desert areas. From the experience we have had at the Luther dam, far different from the experience we had with the Shand dam, we believe that it is a better type of dam and far more useful to the country than the deep Shand dam which was built some twelve years ago.
With this in mind I would recommend to the minister that a great deal more thought be given to encouraging farmers to create ponds of three or four acres in low-lying swampy places on their farms. They should be encouraged to grow trees around these ponds which will distribute the moisture into the air, thus cooling the air and encouraging the crops growing in the surrounding fields. Everyone who has flown in an airplane knows the difference in the air over a forested area as compared with the air over ordinary farm fields. In this country we have to take the necessary steps to see that we have more forests in our farm areas. I am pleased to note that the minister has seen fit to set up an item in his estimates to start the Conestogo

Water Resources
dam. I wish to commend him for that. With these three dams in the relatively small area with which I am connected, I think we will have set an example to many other sections of the dominion, and I would invite representatives from all parts of Canada to come and see what has been done by industrious people in that area of this province who have encouraged reforestation and the retention of our natural resources.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I wish to say a very few words concerning this resolution brought forward by the minister, Mr. Speaker. It might be my only opportunity of supporting it. It is a wonderful thing when a minister of the crown introduces a resolution of this kind urging the provinces to take assistance from the federal government for the development and conservation of certain resources. When I listened to this debate at first, I was inclined to believe that the resolution concerned only western Canada because the central theme of the debate was water conservation for that great province in the west which seems to be perishing from the lack of water. However, I was glad to see the interest taken in this subject by the maritime provinces as well as the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
In my opinion this resolution is just the forerunner of a policy which should be introduced by the government, namely, a policy not only for the development and conservation of water resources but for the development of all our natural resources. As some speakers have said during this debate, we have natural resources that are the greatest of any country in the world, yet we have no direct policy from this government for the encouragement and development of those natural resources.
I am going to deal briefly with water conservation for Prince Edward Island. We have no great rivers or great bays in that province. However, we are different from most of the provinces in that we are entirely surrounded by water. Some years ago our province produced wheat, but then western Canada was able to produce the wheat and put flour into the province at a lower price than we could produce it. During the time we were producing wheat, there were many mill ponds and mill dams scattered throughout the length and breadth of the province to operate the various grinding mills. Today these ponds and dams have practically disappeared. There are only a few operating. The provincial government, in co-operation with the fisheries department, has been rebuilding some of these dams and conserving the water in these ponds. I want to bring this to the

attention of the minister, because so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned I believe he should seriously consider the restoration of these mill ponds and mill dams, in co-operation with the fisheries department, for fish culture. I might say that this would be one of the best things that could be done, especially in the interest of the tourist trade.
Several of these ponds have already been rebuilt, but some of them have not been built in a manner that would make them useful to the fisheries department for fish culture. I know there are a great many other members who wish to speak on this resolution. As I said at the beginning that I was only to draw one matter to the attention of the minister, namely, the restoration of the mill ponds throughout our province, I shall close by telling him that if he will co-operate with the fisheries department in putting these mill ponds into use as fish culture ponds it will be of great benefit to the province. They will be an asset by giving sport fishing to many of the tourists who visit the island.
Again I say I have great pleasure in supporting this resolution. I hope that the minister will come to see us with reference to securing better conservation and rebuilding our mill ponds.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a few words in support of this resolution. The Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) is in the happy position, I think, that he has introduced a measure which has the support of every member in this house, and deservedly so; because in my opinion there is in Canada today no question that is more important than is conservation. Our future as a nation depends on it. Over the years we have listened to enthusiastic propagandists in this country who told us that our resources were inexhaustible and all that kind of thing. The fact is that they are not inexhaustible. Not only have we been using them but we have been wasting them at such a rate that, if we are going to conserve and to keep ahead of the wastage, it will be necessary that a great deal of money be spent.
There has come to my notice recently a book entitled "Conservation in Canada" by Professor O. M. McConkey of the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph. I would recommend this book for reading to the members of this house. A moment ago I used a certain phrase and perhaps I unconsciously had it in mind from reading the book. At page 12 of his book Professor McConkey says:
Our future as a nation depends on a national plan of soil building and conservation to which all governments, rural and urban interests, and each

citizen of Canada can work. We have before us the example of the United States where action has been taken; the U.S. soil conservation service, started in 1933, has developed over two thousand conservation districts covering 80 per cent of all the farms in the U.S.A. This service co-operates with farmers and brings a land use and conservation plan to each farm. But it was too late-
That is, too late to prevent the great harm that had been done. To continue:
-it is estimated that over one hundred million acres of farm land had been destroyed before action was taken.
Perhaps the damage has not occurred on that scale in Canada, but there has been a terrific waste of farmland in this country. On the next page of his book the professor says:
Here in North America the exploitation of our natural resources has been savage and rapid. Within an incredibly short time-from one to three hundred years in the east and seventy-five years on the western prairies-we have destroyed more than a hundred million acres of fertile soil.
If we are going to undo the harm that has been done we shall, as I say, have to spend a great deal of money. I think the minister can get that money provided he makes the necessary effort to inform the people of this country. I believe they are now ready to listen to him or to anyone else who will give them the true story of the misuse we have made of our natural resources. If congratulations are in order for bringing in this resolution as a start, I freely give them to the minister. I hope he will lose no time in seeking the co-operation of the provinces to develop in Canada a conservation program that will be really worth while.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I want to speak about this range of land mass between Ottawa and west of lake Simcoe in the province of Ontario. In my opinion there are in this resolution three things that cannot be separated, namely the conservation of our water, the conservation of our land and the conservation of our forests. Each one of them is so dependent on the other that one cannot exist alone without the use of the other.
This range of land area across this country has been a great watershed. It is a great reservoir for such things as the Rideau canal, the Trent canal and the great lakes in the province of Ontario. The height of land divides the northern section of the county of Haliburton; there the height of land is reached in southern Ontario, and the water runs west towards lake Simcoe and Georgian bay, and north into the Ottawa river, and south to lake Ontario, the waters of the great lakes and St. Lawrence river. This area has become a great reservoir. Great
Water Resources
concrete dams have been built practically all over this whole area for the conservation of water.
I am glad that the minister has made it possible that what is done will be in co-operation with the province; because in this great area, as to the way the water is controlled now, it is in co-operation with the province. The water is controlled not only for the canals but also for the Ontario hydro.
As to this great range of lakes, there is an area of sixty-six feet around all the commercial lakes, you might say, or the larger ones. That sixty-six feet is mentioned in some agreement made probably one hundred years ago between the province and the Dominion of Canada, or at least probably at the time of confederation. That was more or less called the road allowance although it is never used for that purpose. It is used for the control of water. In other words, when you put in a dam you can raise the water sixty-six feet back on to the land without paying anybody anything. At the same time the land and the timber on the sixty-six feet is owned by the people or the company or whoever it might be that own the land back behind it.
I think that is something that should be adjusted. Some arrangements should be made between the province and the Dominion of Canada to the effect that, where a dam has been put in, this sixty-six feet should no longer exist; because over the years, as they put in a dam, in many places this sixty-six feet is already covered when the water it at high level. Therefore the high-water mark should not measure from the outside edge of this sixty-six feet from the lake but should measure from where the original surveys were taken at low-water level.
On a hot humid day water disappears rather fast. On one of our hottest days in the summer two inches of water will be taken off one of these big lakes by the process of evaporation. Something must be done to bring that water from the soil and from the great watershed back into the lake. Nature takes it up and brings it down in rain, but it does not always come back into the lake; it goes back onto the great range of the watershed.
There is another feature about this resolution that I like. The dominion government has seen fit to step into the picture and to do something about it in co-operation with the provinces. To conserve this water you must do something before it gets into the river. You must conserve it in the lake, in the little stream, in the ponds that are spread out throughout the length and breadth of this land. As I said before, great dams

Water Resources
have been built, but that is not enough. What happens in the spring every year after our timber has gone or a fire has ravaged the area is that with the first hot sun in March away goes the snow. It is down in the lake in a day or two. Your lake is filled to the top of the dam. The inspectors must open the stop logs, and let that water go down the river, so that the great waste of water takes place in the spring of the year in places where we have not timber conservation and where we have no fire reservoir. It is high time that this problem was solved.
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) gave us an illustration of the value of water. He told us how water is used in mining, in industry and in every aspect of our life in this country. If this great area was reforested it would be to the great advantage of us all. The province of Ontario has done considerable work along that line. They have great tree plantations from which any land owner or anybody else who wants to plant trees may obtain them. That system did not work out too successfully because many people obtained trees but did not plant them properly, and great waste was made of them. Now when you obtain trees you must pay a cent each for them. I myself plant 8,000 or 10,000 trees every year. I endeavour to plant as many trees as will in thirty-five years amount to as much timber as I cut, or even more, in a year. This system has been carried on by a considerable number of lumbermen on more or less privately-owned lands. It should be carried on to an even greater extent by this resolution.
The time has come when the government should be doing something along the line of producing trees and cover on these great watersheds and thereby preserve the water so that the cover will hold the snow and the ice in the bush in the spring of the year. I have seen swamps, low places in the timber, which have had ice in the bottom of them, some of it probably under a foot of topsoil, in the month of June. If our country was properly handled that would take place all over the high land mass. We would not have the run-off in the spring; we would not have our wasted water in the spring. We would have that water going into our lakes, creeks and rivers gradually until around the first of July. That is when your dams would come into use to make your reservoirs in the lakes.
Some arrangement should be arrived at between the dominion and the provinces with regard to the trapping of beaver. At one time in our country in this great range we had little beaver meadows a mile long

or two miles long which would have four or five feet of water in them. Through our arrangement for trapping beaver, many miles of this area have been trapped out and the last beaver has gone and the dams are rotted out. The beaver meadow, instead of being full of water, has turned out to be a fire hazard in the summertime because it is full of dead grass.
Those ponds full of water served a useful purpose in fire protection because the fire rangers that the province has at the present time could go in there with their hoses and little pumps and that sort of thing and they could get water to put out the fires.
This resolution should go further than it does for this reason. In the Financial Post of five or six months ago this article appeared. They were commenting on the sixth British commonwealth forestry conference which was held here during the past summer, and this is what it says:
This country doesn't know whether we're cutting down trees too last. Of eighteen countries represented at the sixth British commonwealth forestry conference now in progress here, Canada and British Guiana alone are unable to give any estimate of the extent to which new forest growth is matching annual utilization and other depletion of forest resources.
In contrast are the precise and complete set of figures furnished by Great Britain which shows that new growth in 1950 was 130*9 million cubic feet against total depletion of 100*2 m.c.f. In Canada it will be at least three years before even a partial answer can be obtained to the question of whether our forests can continue in perpetuity producing at today's rate. By that time there should be a completed forest inventory in at least eight of the ten provinces.
Canada's report to the conference says it seems probable that considerable proportions of the Canadian forest are being cut too heavily, and adds that there is "urgent" need for more intensive sustained yield forest management.
Meanwhile Canada is taking an annual harvest from her forests that in volume is 50 per cent greater than the collective output of all other commonwealth countries. Over-all Canadian forest output in 1950 was 3,322 m.c.f. Output for the rest of the commonwealth was 2,260 m.c.f. with the largest part of it produced in India, Australia and Uganda.
It was not to our government's credit that they did not have any figures to show the conference with respect to what has been done along this line.
The Ontario conservation association held a meeting in the Normal school in Ottawa a few days ago, and I find this report in the Ottawa Journal:
Federal and provincial governments should assist the townships to control bush fires in the settled townships of Ontario, the executive of zone five, Ontario Conservation Association, decided yesterday at a meeting in the Normal school, Ottawa. Major Angus McDonald, of Alexandria, wui chairman for the meeting.
The reeves believe that some system, corresponding to that which has been develope-J in the

United States, since passage of the Weekes' Act, in 1911, would fit the needs of the rural municipalities.
At the present time there are no provincial employees authorized to take any part in fire fighting, outside of the fire district in northern Ontario, which is protected by the provincial service.
That is something that should be done. There should be more fire protection for this great range of land, and it should be reforested. I have other clippings that I could read but they are practically all the same. I am glad that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) has seen fit to bring in this resolution. I am also pleased that he has said that this work will be carried on in co-operation with the provinces, because the provinces control the cutting of our timber. That is true of Ontario, at least. We know that the provinces control a certain amount of water conservation, and that they work in conjunction with the dominion government with respect to the use of the canals, and so on; whereas the water in all this great area is controlled by the dominion government. The inspectors are paid by the dominion government. They are the men who put in the logs in the spring and take them out gradually during the summer months to let the water down at a gradual flow. As I said before, this resolution does not go far enough. We have to do something to reforest this great watershed so that it will hold back the snow, ice and moisture in the spring of the year, and not let it away with the first signs of spring.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Mr. Graydon:: I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to some of the schemes already in operation. I have in mind particularly the Mimico-Etobicoke conservation authority which has been in operation, I believe, for two or three years, and which has extensive plans for the prevention of flooding of the Etobicoke river in places like Brampton and Long Branch, and intervening points between the township of Chinguacousy and lake Ontario.
A deputation came to Ottawa about three years ago from that area asking this government to co-operate with the Ontario government in connection with the scheme. As the minister knows, some years ago the Ontario government began this conservation authority plan, and left its legislation in such a way that the muncipalities involved would pay 25 per cent of the cost, with 37J per cent to be paid by the provincial government, and on the condition that the federal government would pay the balance of 37i per cent.
Water Resources
This delegation met some of the ministers in Ottawa and put forward the proposal I have described in connection with the Mimico-Etobicoke authority scheme. The matter was brought up in the house by me and by others at that time. The government found many specious and strange reasons why this could not possibly work. I had been here long enough to know that if the government decided to make it work it would work. We now see that it is being worked, despite what was said at that time, because the scheme the minister is now introducing is substantially the same one that the delegation said was feasible, workable and possible.
I have drawn the attention of the minister to an authority, the operations of which are proceeding. The result is that because the dominion government would not come in the provincial government has committed itself to the very large proportion of 75 per cent of the cost, the other 25 per cent to be borne by the municipalities.
This work is in process of completion. Although the diversion of the Etobicoke river, through the town of Brampton, has been completed, or very nearly so, there is other work in progress on the river farther down. I am wondering whether the minister could tell us whether the 37J per cent denied originally will be available in connection with this scheme, to apply from its beginning. Just where does the scheme fit into the general pattern of an authority such as I have described?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the federal government's participation in projects of the kind outlined by the hon. member is to ensure the development of those projects that are necessary but which would not otherwise be developed if there were not some element of federal assistance. If the project is being developed in any event, then obviously it has not been beyond the capacity of the municipal and provincial governments, in co-operation. I would be very doubtful if the project to which the hon. member referred could expect financial participation by the federal government under the legislation here contemplated.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister putting the province to a means test?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it would be a mistake to anticipate the legislation at this stage. But it is a fact that federal participation will be forthcoming only for those projects which would not likely be built without federal participation. I refer to those projects of a magnitude sufficient to render it unlikely that

Water Resources
they would be built by the municipalities alone or by the municipalities and provincial governments jointly.


Gordon Graydon: I do not wish to pursue the matter unduly, but it is not a question of the municipality's being able to do it. Because, either under the minister's scheme or under the scheme of the Mimico-Etobicoke authority, the municipality pays exactly the same, namely 25 per cent. But I take it from what the minister has said that the schemes covered by this legislation would be very large ones, rather than those of a local nature. In other words the toe got in the door in connection with the Shand dam of the Grand river. That is where the federal government was first committed to this kind of conservation. Would it have to be a scheme of such grandiose proportions before the federal government would be interested to the extent of making a contribution?


Robert Henry Winters: It would have to be a scheme of sufficient magnitude to warrant participation by the federal government on behalf of all taxpayers of Canada. It would have to be big enough to have some national significance.


Gordon Graydon: Of course we think, in Brampton, that Etobicoke has some national significance.


Robert Henry Winters: The answer is that it is built, anyway.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, we have had a most interesting discussion on the resolution, and received a minimum of information from the minister. I suggest we should have a further statement from him as to the general policy underlying this matter.


Robert Henry Winters: It will come when we have the bill before us. This is only the resolution stage.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister referred to three or four developments in central Canada. I do not know even yet under what authority the federal government makes contributions to those developments.


Robert Henry Winters: Under a vote of parliament.


Percy Chapman Black: Under a special vote for a certain project?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Percy Chapman Black: Has this policy the minister now suggests been taken up with the provinces? What provinces have indicated that they will be prepared to co-operate with the federal government in putting this conservation measure into effect in those provinces? While there has been reference

to some of the provinces, I have heard no reference to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Have overtures been made by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in respect of the conservation of water and the prevention of flooding? There is flooding at certain times of the year in my county and in Colchester county. I saw a statement a short time ago to the effect that the people in Truro, which is in Colchester county, were alarmed at the prospects of flooding owing to a run-off of water from the mountains in the centre of the county.
I would be interested to know if there are any proposals which have been put forward by the minister, by the provincial government or by the town authorities which would enable a project to be undertaken there. In practically every part of Nova Scotia there is some seasonal menace due to flooding caused by the rapid run-off brought about by denuded forests.
I am sure that communities such as Oxford in my own county, and Truro in the county of Colchester, would be interested in this legislation. I would like to know what provision there will be in this legislation that would be of use to these places and other places in Nova Scotia where there is seasonal flooding, damage to property and continual fear on the part of the residents.


Robert Henry Winters: I think we will have a better opportunity of dealing with this whole subject when the bill is before the house and after hon. members have had an opportunity to study it. The basic reason underlying this legislation is that we have been doing certain things in co-operation with the government of Ontario which it was thought only right and proper should be extended to the other provinces. We are putting in legislative form what we have been doing by special votes of parliament.
It is the intention to make available to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and all the other provinces the same approach to these problems as has been available in certain instances to Ontario. We have apprised all provincial governments of what we intend to do and they have all expressed interest in and keenness to see the legislation. When it is brought down I have no doubt they will be able to tell us whether they have projects which they believe could qualify. If that is the case, I have no doubt that they will bring them forward.


Percy Chapman Black: Will there be sufficient funds available to enable the department to enter into an agreement, say with Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, in connection with conservation projects, or will

a specific appropriation have to be made available by parliament before anything can be done?


Robert Henry Winters: There will be no over-all agreement with a province. Hon. members will see from the bill that there will be a separate agreement with respect to each project which will be considered on its individual merits.


Percy Chapman Black: Will sufficient funds be provided in this year's estimates to enable the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces?


Robert Henry Winters: I think we can deal with that point when the bill is before us. I can tell the hon. member for Cumberland that a vote of parliament will be required with respect to each project carried on under this legislation.


Percy Chapman Black: Am I right in understanding that that is not now in the estimates?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I did not speak on the resolution stage because I did not want to make a speech. We have heard a good deal about the conservation of our water resources, but in some areas there are times when there is too much water. Can the minister give us any information as to how the proposed legislation will deal with the question of flood control? The minister did mention something of this in the speech he gave previously, but we do not all live in the same parts of Canada and there are certain physiographical features that vary with the different localities.
My constituency runs west right into the Rocky mountains. Volumes of water come down from those mountains in the smaller rivers. This water eventually finds its way into the larger rivers, and then into the great lakes and sometimes into the sea. In the spring tremendous amounts of water come down from the mountains in the smaller rivers, very often flooding some of the towns. I have particular reference to one or two towns in the Crowsnest pass in my county such as Coleman, Blairmore and High River, in the northern part of my riding. These towns have been flooded and great damage has been done.
I do not know what the bill will contain and perhaps the minister will want to leave this until the bill comes down, but I wonder if there cannot be some sort of synchronization with water conservation so that these floods can be controlled. When the Fraser river flooded a few years ago it was regarded as a national catastrophe. When a small town
Water Resources
is flooded it is not considered a national catastrophe, but the results are just as serious to the people in that town as to people in larger centres. It is only a matter of number, for the consequences to the individual businessman or home owner are just as serious whether he lives in a small or large community.
A few years ago when one of these towns was flooded I took up the matter with the Minister of Public Works and the dominion government did some flood control work as a relief scheme. At that time they wanted to put men to work so that they could earn their bread and butte*. But when floods occurred later on there were no relief schemes available. Of course there was no money from this government to control any floods there and it was a matter of passing the responsibility from one government to another government, and when they both begin to pass it over from one to another you just cannot get anywhere at all.
So, I would like to know if the minister can give us any information that would be valuable in that respect. Perhaps to make my question a little more direct I might ask him this: Are these various or smaller projects going to be the responsibility of the provincial government after these grants have been given to the provinces? Is it going to be left to their discretion to spend the money the way they wish? Are smaller projects going to be brought into the picture or just the larger ones? If the minister can, I would like him to give the house some information along that line.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave the details of the answer until the bill is before the house. I can tell my hon. friend that flood control is one of the main features envisaged by the legislation we are now seeking to introduce.


William Joseph Browne: The minister has just told us that flood control is one of the principal features of this bill. I wonder if he would mind telling us whether, in devising this scheme, the government had all of the provinces in mind or only those which especially suffered from lack of flood control.


Robert Henry Winters: We had all provinces in mind, Mr. Chairman, and we communicated with all provincial governments.


Howard Charles Green: There seems to be some fear of overlapping between the Department of Resources and Development and the Department of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister could explain where the dividing line is to be drawn.
This afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to a brief submitted

Water Resources
by the Agricultural Institute of Canada within recent weeks. I also have a copy of that brief. They are very much concerned because this policy is to be under the Department of Resources and Development. I know that in the province of British Columbia the people are very anxious to have the P.F.R.A., which is under the Department of Agriculture, extended to that province to undertake the various projects. Apparently P.F.R.A. has had considerable success in developing projects and the demand is for them to undertake projects which I believe would be of the type envisaged by this resolution.
Can the minister tell us just where the line is to be drawn? I hope this is not to be another case of building up two kingdoms in the government with overlapping functions. There does seem to be some danger of that happening and perhaps the minister could explain where the dividing line could be drawn.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not intended, of course, that there shall be any overlapping of functions. The approach to the problem has been at all times that the type of work envisaged by this bill is carried out by the water resources division of the department. That division has been in the department ever since it was the department of the interior.
In our dealings with Ontario, that province's operations have been under its department of planning and development. They did not visualize these projects to be of a type that would in any way conflict with their department of agriculture, nor do we in the federal government. There is no intention of having overlapping in the two fields of activity at all. The act under which the Department of Resources and Development was set up makes the two fields of jurisdiction clear and I can assure hon. members that there is no intention to have overlapping.


Howard Charles Green: One other question. Would this measure enable the Department of Resources and Development to undertake work in connection with such a project as the conservation of water in the Columbia river basin? As the minister knows, the Americans have used that river to almost the maximum possible extent, I take it, in so far as the river is in their territory, but in Canada there is some division of authority between the dominion and the province. I am wondering if the development of the Columbia river basin would come under this measure. I know that the minister's department has for some years been making investigations and surveys and giving help of that kind in the Columbia river basin, but will the whole project come under this measure or could it come under this measure?


Robert Henry Winters: It is difficult to answer that question until we know what the whole project will be. At present there is a survey on the Columbia river basin being carried out under the general jurisdiction of the international joint commission. Certain responsibilities have been assigned to the Canadian section of that commission to conduct surveys; and the water resources division of the Department of Resources and Development has assumed the general responsibility for making the surveys and collecting the data. Once the surveys have been completed and the data compiled it will then be possible to see what the development of the basin should be; but up to that time, not knowing what program of works will commend itself, it is difficult to say who should carry it out.


Howard Charles Green: Would the development of the basin come under the international joint commission or would it be under either the federal or the provincial government? Surely the international joint commission would not actually do the development work. I can understand why they are making the surveys or directing the surveys but they would not have jurisdiction over the actual development.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is correct in that.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any authority which would have the direction of the actual development?


Robert Henry Winters: The question of the actual development would be largely for the provinces. The resources are within the jurisdiction of the provinces and they have the prime responsibility for their development. It is entirely possible that there will be a private enterprise approach to any development that takes place in that basin, and if it takes place it will be with the full knowledge, consent and under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.


Howard Charles Green: Would the dominion government not have anything to do with the development? Mind you, the river system is navigable, so the Department of Public Works would have some responsibility. Would the dominion government not come into that picture at all?


Robert Henry Winters: I am quite sure there would be consultation and each government would work within its own sphere of influence. The development of water resources is, in the first instance, under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. This is a basin which has potentialities of great magnitude and I

have no doubt that if it is to be developed to the fullest extent there will be co-operation between all levels of government.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, on the Burnt river at Kinmount, Ontario, there has been a dam built. I do not know how long ago it was built but it was there long before I was there. It is a timber dam, its piers filled with stone. The piers have become very rotten and the dam is apt to go out at any time. I have been after the Department of Transport, and through them the Minister of Public Works, to rebuild that dam but they have refused to do so until now. A small village of 250 people could arrange to put up $5,000 but that is as far as they could possibly go. I believe the province is likely to come in on it from the tourist angle. Would the federal government be in a position to grant money for 37 J per cent of the cost of that project?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot say. I am not familiar with the project. I would have to see it and study it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We will make you familiar
with it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 109, to authorize the grant of assistance to a province for the conservation of water resources.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS
Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the establishment of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada on a statutory basis; to provide that the board shall consist of twelve members and for its powers and duties; to provide also that the appointed members shall be paid a fee for attending each meeting and travelling and living expenses incurred in connection with the business of the board; to provide also for the appointment and remuneration of a secretary of the board; and to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of the act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor.


Percy Chapman Black: Could we have a statement from the minister now as to the necessity for this legislation?


Robert Henry Winters: Since the motion is one for the Speaker to leave the chair, and since we have gone through this debate on a
Historic Sites and Monuments number of occasions, I think it would be preferable if the statement were made after we are in the committee of the whole, at which time I shall be pleased to make brief remarks.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Robert Henry Winters: Hon. members will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the historic sites and monuments board was set up by the governor in council in 1919 for the purpose of advising the government in the selection and commemoration of sites and events of national historic importance. With the exception of changes in personnel from time to time, the board has functioned on this more or less informal basis up to the present. Its terms of reference have never been clearly or formally defined.
The bill referred to in the resolution proposes to establish the board on a statutory basis and to define its duties and powers. It is proposed that the board shall be composed of twelve members; ten to be appointed by the governor in council and to represent each of the provinces. The other two members would be the dominion archivist and chief curator of the national museum. Provision is being sought to authorize payment to the appointed members of a fee for attending each meeting and for the payment to all the members of travelling and living expenses incurred by them in connection with the work of the board. Authority is also being sought for the appointment and remuneration of a secretary of the board. The bill will also ask for authority to establish historic museums and to acquire land for such purpose. -
I do not think there is anything further I need say at this time. I am sure that all hon. members will agree with the desirability of establishing the board on a more permanent basis, thus giving greater recognition to the importance of the work it will be asked to perform in the years to come.


Frank Sidney Follwell: I believe all hon. members will agree with the minister that we establish this board on a permanent basis. Recently I had the honour of representing the minister at the unveiling of a tablet to commemorate one of the outstanding Canadians of a few years ago. I had the opportunity also of attending with the Prime Minister when, under the direction of this historic sites and monuments board of Canada, there was unveiled in the city of Belleville a memorial to the late Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was prime minister of Canada from December 21, 1894, until

Historic Sites and Monuments April 27, 1896. Sir Mackenzie Bowell represented the old constituency of Hastings North.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I realize the interest that the hon. member has in all the monuments that he has seen unveiled, but on the other hand I am afraid if I allow him to carry on I shall be opening a door which certainly will not be closed this evening. Therefore, I would ask him not to discuss any matter but that which is relevant to the resolution.


Frank Sidney Follwell: I was only endeavouring to point out to the committee the work that this group of ten representatives, one from each province, has attempted to do and has been doing. I believe that the group has been doing great work and, as the minister says in his resolution, apparently without any remuneration. I believe that a board so important as this particular board should be recognized in legislation, and should be properly compensated for the work it has done and is doing. I am sure that all members of the committee will join with the minister in supporting the legislation that he introduces.


William Joseph Browne: It was fitting that today the government should announce that they would erect a monument on parliament hill to one of the Conservative prime ministers, and that the hon. member for Hastings South should be allowed to refer to another distinguished Conservative prime minister to whom another monument has been erected in Belleville.


John Lambert Gibson: It must be a good wicket.


William Joseph Browne: I notice that the minister has not followed the recommendation of the royal commission on arts and sciences. It was not, of course, necessary that he should do so. The royal commission recommended that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should have two representatives each, and also that the Canadian historical association should have the privilege of nominating two of its members for five years. The recommendation has not been followed, but other recommendations seem to have been followed in the main.
Now, sir, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to references which have been made in the report of the royal commission to this very important subject. They are found in two sections, part I, chapter 11, and also in part II at page 346. If I may, sir, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a reference which is contained therein to the province of rMr. Follwell.]
Newfoundland. The reference is found at page 129 of the report and reads as follows:
An area rich in historic sites as old and even older than any in the rest of Canada is Newfoundland. We heard of nearly sixty sites of general historic interest awaiting the attention of the historic sites and monuments board. We were told of the traditional landing place of John Cabot (June 24, 1497), of Carbonear, where the early Channel Island settlers produced the "charbon" for heating their homes, of old graves of Basque fishermen, and of the site of Lord Baltimore's castle inhabited by David Kirke and others.
David Kirke is the Sir David Kirke who conquered Quebec when Champlain was first there.
We were taken back not to the eighteenth century but to the seventeenth and (for a brief moment) to the fifteenth. Canada's newest province proudly and rightly claims her place beside the oldest.
There is no doubt that this board has a great deal of work to do which perhaps could not be easily done by a voluntary organization. The idea of compensating them for the time they spend on their work is no doubt a good one. In St. John's I can think of several places that deserve memorials. It is associated with Sir John Cabot-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Does the hon. member think he should now indicate the business which the board will have to do?


William Joseph Browne: The chairman has asked me a question. Following the precedents which have been followed on other resolutions, I thought that a general discussion might take place, not going too far away from the terms of the resolution itself.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Quite so. But the debate that takes place must always be relevant. I do not want to curtail the discussion, but it seems to me that if all hon. members are allowed on this resolution to indicate to the minister where historic sites should be established all across Canada, so much time would foe spent that it would certainly delay considerably the passage of this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not make the debate out of order.


William Joseph Browne: I hope not to take up too much time. I was impressed by the recommendations which were made by this royal commission, especially in the latter part of the volume. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) does not think that this has anything to do with the board. It is the origin of it.


Mr. Stick:: Not the setting up of each board.


William Joseph Browne: This is where it stems from. It is following the

recommendations of the royal commission that the board is to be put on a statutory basis at the present time. If the hon. member thinks otherwise, he can look at page 348 and see the reference there, and the recommendation.


Leonard T. Stick: I know.


William Joseph Browne: He can read it again with profit.


Gordon Graydon: You do not always get it the first time.


Leonard T. Stick: Second thoughts are always best.


William Joseph Browne: At the
present time the historic sites come under the national parks branh of the Department of Resources and Development. I presume that this board will continue to be operated under the same department. I notice that there are 388 sites in nine of the provinces and not one in the tenth province of Newfoundland. When the board is established I hope it will see that we get our proportionate share of the sixty that have already been brought to the attention of the royal commission.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Chairman, I shall not go to bed tonight with any kind of inferiority complex after having received that burst of applause.
I want to tell the minister that I am in full accord with this measure, which is designed to set up a board on a statutory basis. I have good reason for being in accord with it, and I shall try to explain it in the space of a minute or two.


Mr. Fleming:: Take your time.


Gordon Graydon: There is no rush.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Some time ago I suggested to the minister that a monument be set up near Hopewell in Albert county in memory of the late Viscount Bennett, one of our former prime ministers. The minister agreed to do that and I understand that he suggested to
Historic Sites and Monuments his departmental officials that they proceed with the work. For more than a year now I have been awaiting news of the erection of this monument at the birthplace-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member cannot do that in discussing this resolution. Shall the resolution carry?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Chairman, I am just about through; but I was explaining why I was endorsing this resolution of the minister.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I know that the hon. member, like many others, has a fairly good reason to be out of order. Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 110, respecting the establishment of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall take up third reading of Bills Nos. 19 and 40 which passed second reading and committee stage today. Then we shall consider the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) respecting the Emergency Powers Act; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) respecting the revision of the Yukon Act; also the resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944; Bill No. 46, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. We also hope to have time to consider the resolution concerning the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


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

Friday, February 6, 1953