1954-06-25

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to lay on the
table the annual report of the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act for the year ended March 31, 1954. No new loans were granted during the current year.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish
to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Has the government given further consideration to representations received from white pine manufacturers that the present standards under the N.H.A., not permitting the use of pine in greater than eight-inch widths for roof sheathing, are restricting the sale of this type of lumber?


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: In view of the current surplus of white pine boards in wide widths, the government has asked Central Mortgage to modify the National Housing Act standards now limiting the width of boards used for roof sheathing, to permit roofs to be boarded with white pine in widths in excess of eight inches.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a situation existing in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, which indicates that the car repair shop at Stellarton has been closed down and that this in addition to the 500 miners already out of work is, according to Mayor Sobey of
Stellarton, causing an extremely serious unemployment situation. I would point out that in addition to the closing of the repair shop I am informed by the mayor by telegram that there is also further lay-off of personnel on the Canadian National Railways at Stellarton.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to take this question as notice, and inquire what the position is from the Canadian National Railways and report later. Will my hon. friend let me see the telegram?


George Alexander Drew: I should be happy to do so. In view of the stage of the session at which we are, may I suggest that when the minister obtains the information he might make a statement to us, in view of the fact that the general situation was under discussion yesterday and that the information with regard to this matter did not come to my attention until this morning.


Lionel Chevrier: I will undertake to obtain the information as quickly as I can do so. I must point out to the hon. member, however, that the information I will get will be from the office of the Canadian National Railways at Montreal which, in turn, would have to get it from their maritime regional office. It may not be possible to get it in time before prorogation. However, I assure the hon. member that I will undertake to do it with all haste.


Mr. Macdonnell:: We shall be here all day.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is yet in a position to answer my question of Wednesday as to when the stationary engineers and firemen employed by the federal government in the Ottawa area will be put on the five-day 40-hour week?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker; I cannot answer the question. The matter is still under consideration.
6700	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 463, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.


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


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might give a word of explanation. The amendment consists of adding two sections to the bill, the second one merely the coming into force section but the first one providing in effect that members of the public service on July 1, 1954 may, prior to November 1, 1954, elect not to be participants in the scheme. I should hasten to say that I give full credit for this amendment to Their Honours in the other place and to the active and energetic maiden ladies in Ottawa who pressed this matter strongly.


George Alexander Drew: They have been reading the proceedings in the House of Commons.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not recommend the amendment. I agreed to accept it. But I should be less than frank if I did not say that I do so with some misgivings. On November 1 the government will, of course, have to review the results of these options not to participate. If they are negligible in quantity the plan can be proceeded with. But if they are of any substantial number, I think it would mean that the government would not feel that the bill should be proclaimed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the iron pressure which we are under from the leader of the house, I think a few minutes might be devoted to commenting on this situation. It is natural for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to give all the credit to the other place and it is equally natural for us to appropriate a large part of it to ourselves. This is one of these incidents-and there are not as many of them as we should like to see-that operate to give a modicum of encouragement to the opposition. We know that in many cases where our efforts bear no fruit, we are right-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and a review of the facts would bear that out. But, alas, unfortunately justice is not always done at once
tMr. Pickersgill.]

and we very often have to wait for endorsement. So, Mr. Speaker, it is especially pleasant when the endorsement comes very quickly, and I am sure that the minister, being a generous fellow, will not grudge the fact that we take most of the credit ourselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have appreciated the credit more if my hon. friend had given the grounds on which he wished this measure postponed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will make reference to the giving of grounds, and I wish to say that when I refer to the opposition I do not refer exclusively to the official opposition because we had, I am glad to say, support from elsewhere, from the Social Credit group.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, it is quite possible to disagree on some things and yet agree on others. I will say at this point that I am sure one of the regrets of the government is that they have not been able to stay the course with their socialist friends but have had to depart. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, while it does not go as far as we would like, is in the right direction, and it at least does something to improve a bad bill. I want to point out that it is ironical that the serried ranks which voted for the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill a couple of weeks ago, without even having had time, I suppose, to read the evidence taken before the committee, will now vote for the amendment, but that is at it may be. They voted for the bill without evidence and they now vote for the amendment without evidence. It is interesting to note that the amendment was not even referred to the banking and commerce committee.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is one very interesting lesson from this event, and it is particularly interesting in view of the speeches which were made on this side of the gangway some little time ago about the Senate. It is interesting to realize that this shows that there is one deliberative body of parliament, namely, the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Senate did debate this. They weighed the evidence. They considered the interests of those affected, which does seem a reasonable course. But as we all know-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It evidently does not need any reform.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -no such course was followed in this house-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No reform now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -or in the committee of this house. We remember the incidents, and they can be very briefly related. The minister on May 26-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know that the hon. gentleman would like to review all the proceedings with respect to this bill-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very few, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: -and although he proposes to do it in a very brief way I must remind him of what one can read at page 535 of Bourinot, where it says:
When amendments made by one house to a bill from the other house are received back, and are under consideration, it is not regular to discuss the bill itself, or its principle, or the policy of the government thereon; but the debate must be confined to the amendments.


Mr. Fulton:: On a point of order, may 1 point out that whenever I quote Bourinot I am told it is out of date.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that when the hon. gentleman has quoted Bourinot on certain occasions Bourinot has happened to be out of date, but it happens that on this occasion he is not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling, and in order to make sure that I shall not depart from it I shall keep these amendments in my hand all the time I am speaking. The only point in this very short speech I am making-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Ten minutes so far.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -is to come to the point of these amendments and to stress the fact that I hope, now that a little light has been let in on the minds of the government and they have gone part of the way in the right direction, they may be prepared to go a little further. In order to establish that point, Mr. Speaker, there is just a little more by way of foundation that I feel is necessary. I want to point out briefly-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Christmas is coming.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -the facts which are relevant, that on the 26th of May the bill was introduced in this house, far too late, then went to the committee-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -that the civil service officials-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order.
25,	1954	6701
Public Service Superannuation Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -had only a week in which to ascertain the views of their members, that their views were strong and unanimous on two points, that I moved an amendment in the committee which was supported by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I wish to emphasize the fact that there was no debate on the merits by reading two lines, Mr. Speaker, from the proceedings of the committee after I had moved my amendment and after the hon. member for Peace River had spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think,
especially at this stage of the session, that we should expect hon. members to say in words that they adhere to a ruling and then carry on with further words indicating that the ruling does not mean anything at all to them. I think I have been quite lenient with the hon. member. I know he wanted to give a little bit of the background of the debate and the proceedings with respect to this measure although his remarks should have been confined entirely to the amendment which he said he approved. If he has the amendments before him, as he says, then I would suggest that perhaps he should pay attention to the amendments before him and not to other sheets that he is holding in his other hand. Perhaps that is what is confusing the hon. member. He has the amendments in the one hand and the sheets in the other, and perhaps he could combine the two. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the amendments and not to review the proceedings in connection with this matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will put the other papers away. Seriously, I do have one more point with respect to this matter to which I want to make reference, and it would only take me a moment or two to outline it.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member think that even if, being out of order, he will not take very long to make his remarks I must agree with him that he should be allowed to be out of order even for a minute? I think he has taken that much time to be out of order, and I think I have been very patient.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are always patient, and I try to be patient too.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Be firm, not patient.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I come now to the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Public Service Superannuation Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have been coming to it all the time, Mr. Speaker, but I am right there now. This amendment does give civil servants a chance to opt out. Subsection 2 of the amended section 52 says that an election made under the section is irrevocable. To me there is almost a slight element of threat in that. In spite of what the minister said about his own preference, I do hope that the government, having approved this amendment, will not in any way hedge on it, because in my view what has happened, as I tried to say a moment ago, is that partial light has been let in on the minds of the government, and I hope that they will go further.
I just want to add this one thing. I have referred to the fact that in the deliberative assembly this matter was deliberated. It is surprising that the best the leader of the other place could say for this legislation was that it is not all bad. That was in the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, and I am able to tell you that it is accurate. I hope that in these circumstances, having made the change which has been made, having at last recognized the unanimous representations made by the representatives of the civil servants that this compulsory feature was obnoxious, the government will keep their minds open and, as I say, having gone a little way in the right direction, may find it in their hearts to go still further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no sheets in either hand, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps I can keep in order. Something has been said this morning as to who should get the credit for the amendments that are now before us. Since the last speaker favours the amendments, he naturally talked in those terms, and since I do not like what is being done perhaps I should decide where to put the blame. I do not put the blame on the official opposition in this house or on Their Honours in the other place. I put the blame where it belongs, on the government, for accepting these amendments and moving their adoption as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has done this morning.
So far as the substance of the amendments is concerned, it is quite clear what is involved. As I understand it, the substance of these amendments is that arrangements will be made for those who are in government employ, on or before July 1-


Douglas Charles Abbott: On July 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -on July 1, to contract out of this insurance plan if they do so before the 1st of November.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Anyone who comes into government employ-


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the government, of course, reserves its position to decide whether a sufficient number are in to make the scheme worth while.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am coming to that. I was starting to say that those who may come into government employ after July 1 would not have the right to contract out. It is understood also that any of those who are now in government employ and who decide to contract out prior to November 1, would not have the right to get in again afterwards.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other provision set out in these amendments is for a coming into force clause. I understand that the reason for having a coming into force clause rather than the usual arrangement that the bill become law upon royal assent is, as the Minister of Finance said just now by way of interruption, so that the government can reconsider its position if it wishes to do so after November 1.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to pay some attention to what the government has announced as its intention, in the light of that coming into force clause which is proposed in these amendments. I understand it has been indicated that if a negligible number of persons, say of the order of 2 per cent, contract out, that will make no difference; but it has also been indicated that if as many as 25 per cent contract out, the government may decide not to proclaim the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would certainly be out at 25 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are getting it clear. If there are 25 per cent who decide they do not want this provision, the bill will not be proclaimed. However, the understanding is that in between 2 per cent and 25 per cent the government will reconsider its position.
I must say that to me this is a strange form of democracy. What is being said is that if one person says no and three persons say yes, the bill will not be proclaimed. I would say that if the government wanted to amend the bill to modify the compulsory feature to make it possible for those who do not wish to have this insurance to deny themselves that right, the government might have done it in that way, with whatever modifications might be necessary. But to take this position that if one out of four does not want it the other three who do cannot have it-


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend appreciates that this materially affects the rate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that, and that is what I was saying. If the government wanted to modify the compulsory feature and make whatever change was necessary in the rates so as to have it on an optional basis, that in my view would have been a responsible way to approach this matter. But to put it on the basis of a veto, which is what is provided in this arrangement, is I think contrary to the democratic way of doing things. I put the blame where I believe it belongs. Perhaps the Minister of Finance did not think up this idea, and I will give him credit for moving his motion this morning reluctantly, but I point out it does not matter whether he moved it with reluctance or with exuberance, if the motion passes the result is the same.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the government has taken this position. As I say, I do not object to the government deciding to change the bill if it wishes to do so by making certain modifications on its own responsibility. But I think it is wrong, and I think it is unfair to have it announced to civil servants generally-it is almost a threat, if you like-that if 25 per cent, a decided minority, say no then the 75 per cent cannot have the advantages of this very beneficial piece of legislation. The government was very proud of this legislation. It was put to a vote several times by the government, and it was supported. The government insisted on knowing where the house stood on the matter.
I regret that the Minister of Finance has given in to this pressure, particularly in making the announcement that if 25 per cent are opposed to the legislation the other 75 per cent cannot have it. I do not think that is in keeping with true democracy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just want to add one word. This is a measure that is of benefit for civil servants, not for the government and not for the taxpayers of Canada. When it was represented in the other place, by this aggressive organization of maiden ladies here in Ottawa, that there should be a chance to opt out of the plan, the government felt that was perhaps not unreasonable. However, if more than 20 or 25 per cent do not want it, the plan just falls to the ground. It was devised on the assumption that all members of the civil service would be in it.
If you have an optional plan and a smaller group, then I think the arrangements should be made with an ordinary life insurance company to take out group insurance. This is another type of plan. I would have preferred the hon. member for Greenwood to
25,	1S54	6703
Public Service Superannuation Act have opposed the plan on the basis that he would prefer this sort of thing to be handled by the life insurance companies. He did not do it on that basis. He asked for delay, saying we did not have a chance to study the measure. It is a very simple plan in its essence. It does not require any long study, especially for one as experienced as the hon. member for Greenwood, to know exactly what the plan implies.
The position is that the government does not want to force this on civil servants. The government believed it was a desirable plan, and personally I am hopeful an overwhelming proportion of the civil servants will want it. The government will take a completely neutral position. It will make facilities available for exercising this option, and then it will be up to the civil servants themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask-the minister a question? Will the government do anything by way of trying to give publicity amongst the civil servants as to the advantages of the plan?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I do not
like to see my genial friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) suffer embarrassment at any time. I do not like to embarrass him. However, I am going to have to read him a bit of a lecture again this morning. I remind the minister that we are not in committee and therefore there should have not have been the exchange that just took place.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had the right to close the debate, did I not, Mr. Speaker?


Solon Earl Low: I rose to my feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might explain why I allowed the Minister of Finance to say a word. I understood that he was referring to a statement that he had made and which, in his view, had not been correctly understood by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I was watching the minister so that he would not go farther than that because, had he gone farther than just putting the records straight as to what he had said earlier, which might have been misunderstood by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would have stopped him. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that we are not in committee and that normally the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should not have been put. But it could have been put later when the minister will be entitled to use his right of reply.

Public Service Superannuation Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I apologize to {he hon. member for Peace River. Had I known he intended to speak, I would not have risen.


Solon Earl Low: I can understand how people some distance from the minister may not easily be seen, and perhaps if I had shouted at the top of my voice, to start with, the minister might have withheld what he wanted to say, or did say, until I had finished. However, I have no desire whatever to embarrass the minister, although I am afraid that he is suffering embarrassment now. It is the embarrassment of not having taken a close enough look at this bill, to begin with.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we had presented a pretty sound argument to support the position we took on the bill. And perhaps the most important argument was this, that even although it could be proved that a civil servant would not be able to have as cheap a form of death benefit as he would get if all the members were forced into it under a compulsory scheme, even if that were the case- and I am not convinced that it is the case- there is no justification whatsoever in attempting to force 25 per cent or 30 per cent, or even any percentage, to accept this compulsory feature.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) likes the compulsory feature because he says that the great majority will benefit by having that feature in. But just let me point out once again that while 75 per cent, if that is the percentage that were going to go in, are certainly entitled to the best that they can get, they are not entitled to have anything more than the best they can get, if it means forcing other people to sacrifice for them. That is the principle at stake, and that is the principle we have got to keep in mind.
We are very glad that the minister has finally seen fit to accept this change. I do not blame the government-indeed I compliment them upon having finally yielded to a recognition of those people who are concerned. And if that is not true democracy, then I do not know what true democracy is. Democracy certainly envisages a government with a will to govern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the will of the minority.


Solon Earl Low: The will of the minority has to be respected, and you do not respect them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh yes, we do.


Solon Earl Low: No, you do not. And that is the principle you put forward. You neglect the will of the minority. You wish to force them to take what you think is good for the majority. That is a principle with which

we do not agree, and that is exactly the reason why I supported the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in his motion on third reading of the bill. I am prepared to join with any party when it stands behind the principle of freedom-I do not care what party it is. It was because of the fact that my hon. friend from Greenwood was upholding the principle of individual freedom that I stood behind him. May I say that I am very happy the minister has finally yielded- whatever it may have been he yielded to -and has seen the light.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member favour permitting people to contract out of paying taxation for education?


Solon Earl Low: My hon. friend knows that that is not in the same class at all. He knows that very well. He is very fond of putting questions about taxation and education. But he knows very well that is not in the same class at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It certainly is.


Solon Earl Low: No, it is not-and nothing even remotely approaching it.
Let me just say this, that I am glad the government has removed the compulsory feature and has decided to give civil servants the right of election. I do not care where the credit goes for this. If the credit goes to the Senate, then let me say I am satisfied that hon. members in the other place were moved by the arguments that had been advanced in the House of Commons. And I am satisfied it was because they were moved by those arguments, and were thinking pretty carefully about the matter, that they did suggest the amendments that have now been placed in the bill.
Let me say once again that I think this is one of the real justifications for a second chamber. It is one of the reasons I feel that, in any effort to reform the Senate, we should be very careful not to abolish it; because this is one justification for keeping them here.
Of course my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre will say it is one of the best reasons for abolishing them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: That is the difference in our approach.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that we should not go into the question of Senate reform in this debate.


Solon Earl Low: I was just saying that it is the difference in our approach. We have upheld constantly the principle of individual freedom, and we are going to continue to uphold that principle, irrespective of what others have to say.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I have only two or three brief observations to make.
I am glad that I have lived to see this day. I am glad I have lived to see a situation in which a government which was riding very high, here in this chamber, on this particular matter only a week ago Monday, June 14, has now come before the house and is prepared to eliminate from this bill much of the compulsory feature which was contained in the bill, and to which we took such strong objection.
But when the bill was under discussion then the government was not prepared to listen. They were not prepared to entertain any suggestion for delay so that there could be further consideration of the subject. But in the eleven intervening days something has happened, and now we find the government coming forward and asking the House of Commons to amend this bill so as to afford at least a limited opportunity to those employed in the civil service on July 1 to contract themselves out of this plan.
To the extent to which reason and common sense have triumphed over the government juggernaut that was not prepared to brook any delay, or to give any opportunity to the civil service to put its views forward eleven days ago, we should be thankful indeed to the other place. We of the official opposition sought in the interests of freedom and fair play to eliminate this compulsory feature. We did not succeed, because in the last analysis the majority overruled us. But, now that reason and fair play have triumphed, we ought to give the other place all due credit for what they have done in that respect.


Mr. Dickey:: Praising the Senate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will praise anybody who does a reasonable thing, and I am waiting for the day when the hon. member for Halifax does the first reasonable thing that I am able to praise.
Then, there are one or two other points I should like to mention. The first has to do with one or two remarks of the Minister of Finance, in a manifestly sneering voice, about maiden ladies in the civil service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not at all, not at all; I was simply stating the facts. There is nothing sneering about it.
25, 1954	6705
Public Service Superannuation Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: The tone of the minister's remarks was unmistakable, Mr. Speaker, and was very disparaging to the maiden ladies of the civil service. I wish to make two observations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you not rule that discussion on this matter had to be relevant to the amendments?


Mr. Speaker:: That of course was the ruling, but some hon. gentlemen take a long time to introduce their subject. It may be that now the hon. member for Eglinton is going into another phase of his remarks. He is merely introducing what will be his relevant subject in a moment. I am very patiently waiting for that; but in any debate, if one speaker makes a remark which the other one picks up-for instance, a moment ago we almost went into the subject of Senate reform again just because one hon. member happened to mention that the action taken by the Senate with respect to these amendments justified the establishment of a second chamber. Well, we cannot open up that subject, and I hope we shall not come back to it.
The hon. member for Eglinton said that some of the expressions used by the minister were, in his view, sneering remarks. The minister said that they were no such thing. The hon. member for Eglinton is supposed to take the statement made by the minister as being the one by which he must abide. Where do we go from here? We are studying the amendments. The hon. member for Eglinton is studying the amendments; we are all studying them. I have them before me. They seem to me to be very simple ones. It all depends on how elaborate one wants to make his remarks.
The hon. member for Eglinton is usually relevant in anything that he wishes to say, and I hope that on this occasion he will not depart from his ordinary line of conduct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no likelihood whatever of the member for Eglinton departing from relevancy in this debate, because if the Minister of Finance was relevant in his remarks this morning I will be relevant also since my remarks will be directed to the remarks of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that is not relevant. If in the general exposition of views in reply to another member some passing references are made to matters which do not come directly under the scope of this amendment, I do not think that one member can pick out one passing reference made here and there in somebody else's speech and say I am going
6706	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act to direct my remarks exclusively to that. I think he must treat that as a passing reference, as well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not basing my remarks on that theme at all. The Minister of Finance gave as one of the reasons for the amendments, now before us, having been passed by the Senate and now being recommended to the house by the government for adoption, the fact that there had been pressure from maiden ladies in the civil service. I intend to make two observations about that, as the reason for those amendments.
The first is that maiden ladies in the civil service have as much right as anyone else in the civil service to make their views known.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear; I heartily agree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the second place, the Minister of Finance had better not assume that the opposition within the civil service to the compulsory features of this scheme was confined to the maiden ladies. One of the points I sought to make in the debate was that no one could say, until there had been consultation with the civil servants, what their feeling is. All I can say is that such contacts as I have had with married men in the civil service who have spoken to me indicate that many of them do not want this plan, and they object to the compulsory deductions from their salaries to pay for it.
The third matter on which I should like to make brief comment is this. It is a curious conception of what is democracy as expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). His intimation was that if the civil servants have an opportunity of giving free expression to their views in this matter, and 75 per cent of them should indicate they want this plan, they have the right to have it and automatically to impose that plan on the other 25 per cent and to compel the government to make these deductions from the salaries and pay of the other 25 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, just to keep the record straight. What I said was that I object to the government denying it to the 75 per cent because 25 per cent did not want it. I said quite clearly that if the government wanted to amend the bill taking out the compulsory feature that I was prepared for the government to do that on its own responsibility. What I objected to was the announcement that if 25 per cent are opposed and do not want to take advantage of the plan, that it would be denied to the other 75 per cent.
iMr. Speaker.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a fair statement. Clearly that is a statement of the hon. gentleman's views. That is his position. Then the responsibility rests with the government as to whether the plan will be killed or not, but I would take strong-
Xdr. Knowles: That is the purpose of the coming into force clause before us now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But I would take strong issue with any suggestion that because 75 per cent are in favour of the plan, for that reason the government ought to go forward and make those deductions from the other 25 per cent even against their clearly expressed wishes.
The final matter is the minister's statement that the government will take a neutral position. That is indeed a welcome statement, Mr. Speaker. It is extraordinary; it is so different from the statement on this very same matter, Mr. Speaker, the compulsory aspect of this bill which is involved in the amendment, which was expressed by the Minister of Finance in this house just eleven days ago. Then he said: in the opinion of the government, this is an excellent plan, and we do not see any reason for delay. It was sufficient, in the government's view, that they thought that the plan was good for those to whom it was to apply at their cost. There has been a radical change in the attitude of the government in those eleven days.
What is the particular reason for this change? Goodness only knows. It may be that the views of the civil servants, those who are going to be affected, have somehow begun to register on the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. When this matter was before us a week ago Monday, unquestionably not more than 15 per cent of the members of this house knew the evidence that was taken before the banking and commerce committee. I do not suppose that there was more than one minister at the most in the cabinet who had taken the trouble to read the evidence at that time. Well, it may be that the views expressed by the civil servants, through their responsible representatives, have begun to make some impression; but whatever has happened in those eleven days, it is indeed a radical change, Mr. Speaker, and one for the better; and we may hope that the government, having seen some light, having retraced its arbitrary footsteps in this matter, will see fit to follow this example in other similar situations in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. MacEachen:: The discussion of the coal industry in this debate so far has proceeded on the basis of three assumptions. First, that the coal industry is indispensable to the economy of Canada, especially in times of national emergency. Second, that the satisfaction of the long run energy requirements of this country must depend in part on coal. The third assumption is that the coal industry, as a source of employment and earnings, is crucial to the industrial economy of Nova Scotia. These three considerations, Mr. Chairman, are of sufficient weight to provide a solid basis for a firm and generous policy of support to the coal industry. In the past this policy of encouragement has been carried forward in the main through, first, the small customs tariff, second, subventions on the movement of coal, and third, the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act.
The customs tariff and especially the subventions policy had their origin in the competitive advantage and consequent threat of imported United States coal. Since 1928, approximately 31 million tons of Nova Scotia coal have been moved at an expenditure of approximately $40 million. As long as the chief threat to the Canadian coal industry came from imported United States coal, this subvention policy seemed adequate to maintain stability in the industry. However, within recent years the source and form of the competition to the coal industry has changed abruptly. The major form of present competition is not from imported coal but from fuel substitutes, and fuel substitutes in some cases of Canadian and not foreign origin.
The dominion coal board report states:
It appeared certain that this factor, namely, the inroads of oil and natural gas would occasion further dislocation in the industry as pipeline facilities expanded and the railroads pressed forward their program of dieselization and conversion.
Later the report states:
The Niagara power development and the St. Lawrence seaway and power project threaten to make available a supply of secondary power which would involve the temporary displacement of some tonnages of coal as far east as Montreal.
I believe the new forms of competition have brought greater and more formidable
25, 1954	6707
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys difficulties in the development of a suitable coal policy. The difficulties are apparent because fuel substitutes are produced in Canada by fellow Canadians.
However formidable the difficulties, the only satisfactory attitude to the current crisis is an attitude of realism taking into account that the chief ingredient in the development of the coal industry is a product that will hold the market against fuel substitutes.
This view is accepted without question. It was recognized in the enactment of the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act under whose terms millions have already been made available to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation and other coal companies for mechanization with the anticipation of lowering the cost of production. Up to the present time no lower costs have resulted from mechanization.
The president of Dosco now expresses doubt as to whether the deterioration in the market for coal will warrant the continuation of a mechanization program. But it should be borne in mind that an improved market outlook depends upon lowering production costs, and that each of these desirable outcomes is indispensable to the future of the coal industry. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, any reluctance to pursue the mechanization program, as a lower cost device, either on the part of the government or of the industry, must be resisted because such a position means that the industry expects a guaranteed market as a precondition of cost-reducing innovations, which are in themselves the only way to assure a coal market.
The program recently initiated by the provincial government, in co-operation with the industry, to stimulate the home consumption of coal is a step in the right direction. Sales in the home market have already decreased by 500,000 tons per year. Annual production of this magnitude creates employment for
1,000	men. Part of this decrease is due to the switchover by industry and domestic users from coal to oil. This program of stimulating consumption of coal in the maritime market deserves all possible encouragement, and I think it is important because it may hold the line against further encroachment of oil until the pay-off point is reached in certain research projects into new uses for coal.
Reference has already been made to the research being conducted at McGill University by Professor Mordell into the coal-fired gas turbine, in the fuel division of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Though the coal crisis hit the headlines very dramatically this winter, scientists have
6708	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys been working quietly and painstakingly to discover ways by which coal may compete effectively with oil as a fuel and as an industrial raw material. Of particular interest and importance is the work of the Nova Scotia research foundation, not only because of its own research, but because it is in contact with research into coal being undertaken in Europe and the United States.
Among experiments which are outlined in the annual report of the Nova Scotia research foundation are, first, research into the burning of coal underground to recover energy and by-products. Underground gasification of coal would permit the use of thin seams of coal. Second, research into development of methods of handling and burning Nova Scotia coal to eliminate the nuisance of smoke, hand-firing and ash removal from domestic furnaces. Third, study into methods of coal carbonization. Interest in this process springs from the collection of coal tar chemicals as potential raw material in chemical industries.
I believe this research deserves all possible encouragement and public support.
Of all the research that is now going on into further uses of coal, no series of experiments is fraught with greater possibilities than the work now under way at Morgantown, West Virginia. Equipment developed by the United States bureau of mines, in association with the engineering firm of Babcock and Wilcox, is producing gas from coal in surface units.
If this gasification should prove to be suitable and economical for Nova Scotia coals, then the future markets for the industry may not be solid coal transported by subvention assistance to the central market, but a coal market at the pithead at conversion units turning coal into gas for domestic and industrial use in the maritimes and Quebec. Nova Scotia coals have been tested at Morgantown, and at some future date it is even possible that gas from Nova Scotia coal will move by pipe line into the large consuming centres.
If this type of research proves practical, then it may provide the real answer to the problem of a Nova Scotia coal industry.
I now come back to an earlier point, Mr. Chairman. All progress in the coal industry rests, in my judgment, on a more competitive fuel. It is commonly believed that the chief way of reducing costs is through mechanization. Up to the present time, no reduction in costs has occurred through the installation of big machinery. I am not advocating that this program should be stopped.


It is my belief however, given the proper motivation and the proper conditions, the human resources-the people in the industry -could increase productivity far beyond the expectations now placed on the installation of big machines. I believe this increased productivity could take place with greater rewards in form of income and human satisfaction. Maybe the chief error of modern business is to plan for every conceivable phase of the productive process except the proper motivation and satisfaction of the human resources.
I am glad the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred last night to the engineering know-how latent in the working force in the Cape Breton mines. That the human resources of the coal industry-and of most other industries-have untapped sources of ingenuity, skill and ideas is the first attitude to be taken towards this problem. How can one release this productivity? First, by setting up a structure within the mines whereby the combined creativeness of the work force can influence productive decisions. Second, by the development of a productivity yardstick that measures increased group performance and a reward system that puts punch into team work. Finally, by the acceptance by management and the union of each other as essential institutions in the industry.
I believe there exists today in the Nova Scotia coal industry a basis for the introduction of such a joint system of union-management co-operation. I am not advocating a speed-up. I am not advocating anything that will weaken either management or union. I am advocating a formula that will strengthen both as well as strengthen the industry.
The chief exponent of this type of relationship is a former union president and former research director of the United Steel Workers of America. At present he is on the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I refer to Mr. Joe Scanlon. Joe Scanlon has applied his productivity plans, based on the above ingredients, in a variety of industries with remarkable success. Unions like his approach to productivity and so do managements.
Last week I had the opportunity to discuss once again with Mr. Scanlon in Boston the success of his work in the German coal mines at the end of the war when coal production was one of the chief problems of Germany. Joe Scanlon's staff succeeded in achieving concrete results in improving the productivity of those mines. I believe the

same approach is worthy of serious consideration in connection with the Nova Scotia industry, because this industry is vital to the welfare of my province.
Mr. Chairman, discussion of the coal industry in Nova Scotia has centred in the main on the problems of the chief operator and the communities to which its operations extend. It is in that general vein that I have made my remarks up to the present time. However exclusive attention to the interests of the chief operator is not consistent with the welfare of other smaller communities.
When I return to my constituency I shall visit two communities now languishing because of the state of the coal industry, namely Inverness and Port Hood. When I return to Inverness, almost every miner in that community will be walking the main street because there is no market in which it is possible to dispose of their coal which is excellent for domestic purposes. Inverness town has been the chief casualty of the Nova Scotia coal industry, and already it has borne too great a share of the burden and sacrifices involved in the current adjustments of that industry.
I invite from the dominion coal board increased attention to the problems of the independent operators in the small communities, in finding markets and also in developing methods to share in a fair manner among all communities the burden of the present difficulties of the coal industry.


Mr, Lusby:: I should like to join in this discussion briefly in order to make a few remarks from the point of view of my own county of Cumberland where the coal industry is one of vital importance. In that county about 1,800 men are engaged in the actual mining of coal, and they with their families -apart from the other people connected with the industry in other capacities-constitute a substantial segment of our entire population. Of our two mining areas, Springhill, which is one of our leading towns-its patriotic citizens are inclined to call it the leading town-is almost entirely dependent upon its collieries which are operated there by a subsidiary of Dosco, the chief producer in Cape Breton. In the other mining area, namely the Joggins-River Hebert area, several so-called independent mines are located. Their relative importance in the picture is practically as great. Certainly any closing of the mines would entail a large degree of depopulation.
I therefore welcome any opportunity to urge upon the House of Commons and upon this government the gravity of the problems which are now facing the Nova Scotia coal
25, 1954	6709
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys industry and the need for an expanding and comprehensive program of assistance in order that the industry may be enabled to survive.
More publicity has, I think, been given to the problems of the industry in Cape Breton and in Pictou county than in Cumberland. As yet perhaps we have not been as seriously affected as have those other sections of the province. But the picture in the Joggins-River Hebert area where, as I said there are small independent mines operating, is already dark, and with summer coming on, of course, the unemployment situation there is going to be worse than it has been during the winter months. They face, of course, the problem which the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond just mentioned. Their problems are somewhat different from and possibly more difficult of solution than those of the larger operators. But in any event the problems of the future are much the same for all coal communities. The same or much the same solutions must be found if the coal industry is to survive in Nova Scotia. The implications, of course, reach far beyond the immediate areas I have named; for if the industry perishes, then the whole economy of the province, which is based to a substantial degree upon coal, will receive another of those shattering blows which it has received so often since confederation.
Since the last decades of the nineteenth century the coal industry has maintained a place of major importance in the economic life of Cumberland county. It has had varying fortunes, but to date it has always been able to survive all the dangers which have from time to time threatened it, although never before so ominously as at the present time.
To go back to the beginnings with us, history records that even in the distant days of the French settlements boatloads of coal from the Joggins seams went up and down the coast to fire the forges of the sturdy blacksmiths of the Acadian villages. That thought takes us back to the romantic days of Evangeline. I do not think Longfellow's poem mentions it, but I daresay that Basil the blacksmith was using Joggins coal. However, we are not living in the past, and certainly there is very little room to find any poetry in the coal situation as it exists today. Many descendants of those early Acadians, I may add, still find work in the pits of the Joggins area and they face now possibly another expulsion, an economic expulsion from their ancestral soil.
The problems of the Nova Scotia coal industry have, I know, been dealt with in considerable detail, and I think they are fairly well known to most members of the
6710	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys house, even to those who have no immediate concern with them. Lack of industrial development in the maritimes, distance from the markets of central Canada coupled with the nearness of American sources of supply, adverse natural conditions which are a very strong factor in the situation in Nova Scotia -the depth of the Springhill mines, for example-militating against low costs of production, the increasing use of hydroelectric power and finally, of course, the increasing competition from oil and natural gas, now undoubtedly in a stage of rapid intensification, these and the marketing difficulties which they create are the present emergent problems of the industry.
It has been said that our coal industry has itself to blame for very much of its present plight. I would be ready to allow a certain measure of truth to this, at least with regard to the past, but I think it is also true to say today, from what I have seen of management and labour relations, that both management and labour today realize fully the gravity of the situation and are ready and willing to play their part in the fight to save the industry. I know that both are giving very strong support to the campaign which has been inaugurated in the maritimes to promote the use of coal in preference to other fuels, chiefly oil. It is hoped that the campaign will win back a substantial market for coal. I believe that both management and labour are now willing to co-operate fully in the endeavour to attain a maximum in efficiency of production, something which is of vital importance to the Nova Scotia industry. Some progress of course has been made along this line, but it is a long and difficult road which they must travel. Certainly time will be needed before any substantial results can be obtained, and unfortunately the next few years will be crucial ones for the industry.
It has been generally forecast-indeed, I think it is the considered opinion of the dominion coal board-that by the middle sixties the increase in population and in industrial development in Canada will create a situation whereby the demand for coal will have reached a point at which the industry can maintain itself on at least its present level. Assuming the correctness of this forecast, the industry is not moribund in the sense that we must visualize a perpetually expanding program of governmental assistance to keep it on its feet. But, as I say, the next decade will be the crucial years, and undoubtedly the need for assistance to the coal mining industry will remain very great. Anyone questioning the wisdom of furnishing such assistance as may be required must, I think, weigh against the undoubtedly high
[Mr. Lusby.l

cost attendant upon that what I call the much higher cost, both tangible and intangible, of allowing the industry to perish.
At this stage all my remarks are made with the full and, I may say, the uneasy knowledge that as far as any prophecies for the future are concerned the whole picture may be completely changed by the coming of atomic power for industry. If it comes, as it undoubtedly will, it will probably affect profoundly the whole economic face of the country and, I hope, with benefit to the maritimes. But I think such speculation as that at the present time may be left, in the discussion of this subject, until such time as these possibilities of atomic power, strong though they undoubtedly are, have reached the stage of reality and the effect of atomic power upon the use of conventional fuel can be more accurately determined.
On the basis of confirmed knowledge the death of our coal industry would in time of peace, in my opinion, create a very serious sapping of our economic strength and our industrial prospects. It would mean that the maritime provinces would be pushed deeper into the economic mire. It would mean widespread unemployment, distressed areas, the depopulation of towns and villages, for one of the tragedies of the situation is that in most cases the coal mining community is almost entirely dependent upon that one industry. It would mean that the people from these towns and villages would have to undergo a forced exile to distant parts of the country, or perhaps even beyond their own borders. A situation like that would undoubtedly provide a spawning ground for communism and its evil doctrines.
In time of war-I know this has been touched on before but I think perhaps it is not amiss that I should mention it again- the loss of the industry would be revealed as a very serious gap in our national security, a serious impairment to our capacity for either defence or attack. For the proof of that statement I think we have to go no farther than to the days of the last world conflict. Coal and steel were the twin pillars of our war effort then, and so far no adequate proved substitute for either is at hand, while the threat of aggression hangs over us almost constantly. I need hardly emphasize that this is no time for any gambling with matters which may affect our national security.
When we consider therefore the costs, the penalties attendant upon the loss of the Canadian coal industry, I think we can assert with confidence, as I do, that it is a matter of national self-interest that this government, in conjunction of course with the provincial

governments immediately concerned, should bend every effort to ensure that such a loss shall not occur.
The principle of federal assistance to the coal industry is not a novel one. We have the system of freight subventions instituted in 1928, over a quarter of a century ago, which throughout that time has been a mainstay of the industry. We have such acts as the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act under which loans are available for mechanization and modernization of mines. In Nova Scotia that has not produced great results yet, but there are possibilities and some work has been done. I am very glad to know that the government, as the estimates under discussion show, realizes fully the desirability of continuing and expanding the system of freight subventions.
There is also the assistance given in connection with the use of coal in the manufacture of iron and steel. We have the dominion coal board itself which I think has done a great deal to aid the industry. However, I think within the limits of its existing statutory powers it could be made an even more efficient instrument to that end. The government has furnished substantial assistance in connection with the very promising development at McGill University of a coal-fired gas turbine engine. That may prove to be of some substantial help to the coal industry once it is brought to perfection.
All these measures have accomplished much to aid the coal industry in its fight for survival, and I say without any hesitation that all the expenditures involved may be considered money very well spent in the national interest. In another aspect there has been a promising beginning. I refer to the inquiry now under way into the possibilities of producing more electricity from coal in the maritimes. I am rather particularly interested in that because one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the successful developments on the North American continent in producing electricity from coal at or near the pithead was carried out at Chig-necto in my constituency.
As a matter of fact most of the electricity used in the county of Cumberland today is produced by a coal-fired plant situated at Maccan near the River Hebert-Joggins mines. There is, however, one field of assistance to the coal mining industry which I consider is very largely unexplored in this country. That is the field of research to discover new and commercially practicable uses for coal apart altogether from its conventional use as fuel. That, incidentally, is a field which would not be affected by any development of atomic power.
6711
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
It has long been known, of course, that coal is a potential source of numerous products of high market value. I have a list here of a few examples which are as follows: perfume, gasoline, alcohol, disinfectant, dyes, ammonia, and fertilizer. Since the list ranges from perfume to fertilizers, one can see how wide a range of potential products coal contains. In essence, all of these products are in the blackness of a lump of coal. In most cases they are extractable by scientific methods already known, but unfortunately not yet at competitive costs. Much has been done abroad in the way of discovering new and better methods of extraction. The last speaker mentioned some experiments being conducted in the United States. The Nova Scotia government, within the limits of its resources, is doing its utmost to aid the coal industry by maintaining a close liaison with the experiments that are being conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is keeping in touch also with European experiments which have as their objective the development of soil conditioners from coal.
I understand that some Nova Scotia coal has been successfully used as the basis of an experiment along that line. It seems to me the federal government has not yet concerned itself to the extent it should in this field. I should like to suggest that no matter what is being done abroad we should not be content to await results from the United States or from Europe. I feel that Canada should be m the forefront of this, as in all other fields of industrial research.
One of the statutory objectives of the dominion coal board is, I believe, as follows:
The board may undertake or cause to be under-ta / ^fsearches and investigations with respect to:
(c) The physical and chemical characteristics of coal produced in Canada with a view to developing new uses therefor.
I should like to urge that the existing powers of the board in that respect be put to much wider use than has been the case so far. This will involve a substantial expenditure undoubtedly, but I am firmly convinced that, in common with all sums which have been already expended and are being expended to assist the coal industry, these further sums devoted to that purpose could be considered money very well spent in the national interest.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys that we in Cumberland county, and I know the same holds true for the rest of Nova Scotia as well as for other coal producing areas in Canada, appreciate greatly the time and attention that he has given to the problems of the coal industry in Canada. The
6712	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys spirit of genuine co-operation he has shown in this regard cannot be too highly commended.


Mr. Blackmore:: I have two desires in rising, Mr. Chairman, first of all, to get what I have to say said quickly, and secondly to say the things that need to be said. I wish, at the outset, to commend the minister for the manner in which he has attacked the problem. I believe his introductory speech last night was a model and I should like to encourage him to continue the deep interest he has already shown.
I want to say something to him in all kindness, and I hope he will not be offended, but I believe it is a matter he needs to have drawn to his attention. At the moment, we in Alberta have the idea that he gives altogether too much attention to his quarrel with the Social Credit movement in that province. If he would just forget his quarrel with that government and with that movement, and remember that he is the responsible minister of the crown for this whole country, then he would not say things like those to which the hon. member for Macleod referred last night, wondering what Alberta is doing about this coal problem. I thought I really should say that in all kindness because the minister has great possibilities, and I want to see him attain them with all the speed of which he is capable.
In respect of the problem of coal which confronts us, I do not wish to review the various aspects of the problem. I know they are very difficult. I believe I know pretty well all the things that stand in the way of finding a solution for Alberta's coal problem. When I first came to Ottawa I devoted a great deal of attention to the subject of coal, and did what a member could to help get our coal down into Ontario and Quebec markets. In those days we had not discovered the gas and oil in Alberta to any such extent as we have since discovered it. We had not conceived the feasibility of the idea of bringing that gas and oil down here by pipes. Now, of course, those things are practically an accomplishment. I gave up talking about coal for a while because I realized that there seemed to be difficulties which were insuperable, but my interest has continued nevertheless.
There are three or four things I think that need to be pointed out as a sort of summary to what has already been said. What seems to be worrying the coal producing areas more than anything else at the moment is the unemployment that has resulted in the coal producing communities. If we could somehow manage to provide employment for the men who have been displaced by a reduction in markets for coal, and the final closing of
[Mr. Lusby.I

the mines, then the urgency of the problem at the moment would, in large measure, be eliminated. I am sure the minister realizes that. What is troubling the people, for example, in the Shaughnessy area is that they do not know where to turn to find work with which to support their families. I mention Shaughnessy, but that is only one of the mines that have been seriously affected in my constituency.
There is one aspect of the question that the hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned last night which I must say has given me a somewhat new slant. I gather from a statement of the minister to which the hon. member referred, that the minister foresees a time in the not too distant future when we, in Canada, may have a need for all the fuel production of which we are capable. I do not know whether I am misinterpreting the report or whether the reporter misinterpreted the minister, but I do not really quite see how there could be such a development of Canadian industry and population within 11 years as to make the country capable of using all the fuel productive capacity we have. If there is, so much the better.
I believe another matter the hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned last night is most pertinent to the needs of the situation connected with the problem. We must take steps to see that no mine shall have its coal producing capacity destroyed or seriously impaired through disuse over a number of years. I believe that is a very important point. In trying to draft a policy for the next two years, we ought to bear that in mind. I am sure the minister has done so.
The next matter, to which of course everyone referred, is the developing competition with coal on the part of other fuels, such as oil, gas, gasoline, electricity and finally atomic power. There is a probability that even solar energy will be competitive. Men are talking about a means of taking energy out of the sun and using it for industrial and domestic purposes. We must recognize that competition is an actual fact, and will continue to be a fact. In so far as western Canada and eastern Canada are concerned, the competition of United States coal with our own fuel is and is likely long to be a serious matter for us. In that connection I am not sure that I have the figures correct, but the minister will check me if I am wrong. However, as I recall it we are importing from the United States something like two tons of coal for every ton we are producing in Canada. Is that correct?


George Prudham: I will answer that later.


John Horne Blackmore: I just wished to make sure. We will change the figure, if what I have

said is not correct. I think it is correct to say however that we are importing much more coal from the United States than we are actually producing in Canada. Naturally this makes people in the east and the west feel resentful when we have difficulty in marketing our coal in Canada.
I know, of course, the difficulties which arise. There are the long distances we have to transport our coal. Nevertheless we must face this very important fact, that if we used all our productivity to produce coal, as we have thus far developed it, we would not be producing as much coal as Canada now consumes.
I wish now to say a word in respect of Alberta's coal producing capacity, as a whole. Alberta is peculiar in several respects as regards her coal production. She produces a wide variety of coal. Some of it is almost as valuable as anthracite, and then we produce coal all the way down the scale, until we come to something that is very close to lignite. That is a point worth bearing in mind.
Then the next point to bear in mind is that Alberta's mines are rather widely distributed, although it is a fact that they are all in the one province of Alberta.


George Prudham: If I might interrupt the hon. member at this point, I would give him the figures for which he asked. He has asked about Canadian production, as compared with imports. In 1953 Canadian production was 15,896,000 tons while imports were 22,521,787 tons.


John Horne Blackmore: I thank the minister for that information. It makes the disparity less aggravating. And yet, even those figures are impressive, are they not?
Then, I was about to refer to the distribution of Alberta mines, which means that if we use the different kinds of coal coming from the different mines in Alberta, in the development of industry for the future, we have a wide possibility of variation in industrial development in Alberta. That is another point worth mentioning.
The next important fact about Alberta coal is that, in a general way, it is economical to produce. We do not have anything to compare with the difficulties confronting the people of Nova Scotia, who have to go down under the sea floor in order to find the coal and bring it out. On the other hand, in Alberta we have a good many areas where strip mining is quite practicable, and indeed was practised during the second world war. That also is a point which should not be forgotten particularly when making a plea for Alberta's coal production.
83276-424i
25, 1954	6713
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
The next important thing in respect of Alberta is that she is capable of tremendous industrial development. Up to the present time of course the industrial centres in Canada have been in Ontario and Quebec, and no doubt a good many people in those provinces would like to have it continue so. But I believe when they begin to think in terms of the nation, and of over-all security, they will realize it will be greatly to their advantage to have a vast amount of industrial development take place in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia so that there will be two powerful industrial areas in Canada. That ought to be borne in mind when we plan.
One could give a good example from the last war, to illustrate the point I have in mind. I would refer to the fact that while I was in Great Britain in 1941 as a member of the Empire Parliamentary Association delegation from Canada, I was told that Great Britain at the time of the war was divided into 12 areas. The aim was to make each of those 12 areas self-sufficient so that if an enemy were to conquer even 11 of them, the twelfth could still carry on and support a substantial war effort, with the hope ultimately of expelling the foe and defeating him.
I suggest that is a good thing for us to reflect upon in Canada. If a foe were to come to our country and destroy the industry of Ontario and Quebec, in large measure it would leave Canada almost defenceless from an industrial point of view. I think that is not a sound condition to encourage for the future, when there is so much danger. What I say strengthens my general contention that we should keep in mind the possibility of making Alberta the great industrial centre in Canada which it is capable of becoming.
Therefore it is of great importance that we preserve the coal mines in Alberta, and maintain their coal producing capacity. That is a matter which I suggest is very much worth remembering. To have a powerful industry developed in Alberta would strengthen us in both peace and war. In peacetime it would enable us to support a much larger population, and in wartime of course it would give us additional fighting strengtn.
What is the solution? There is the great problem. I do not hesitate to say right now that I think the solution is increased subventions to put Alberta coal into Ontario and Quebec so as to displace American coal. I know about the objections to shutting out American coal. That subject has been referred to by previous speakers. But everybody knows-and I wish to be careful not to use
6714	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the wrong word-about the unpredictability of the labour unions in the United States. It would be possible for those labour unions in the United States to create a disturbance while we were in a war which might shut us off from our supply of coal from the United States, and thus embarrass us most seriously in our endeavour to keep up industrial production in Ontario and Quebec. We might as well face that fact now, while we can do something about it.
Consequently, from a national standpoint I think it is of compelling importance that we produce our own coal and get it into these two industrial provinces even as a temporary measure where it will be sorely needed. If we do not later feel that we can stand economically the financial strain of providing continually those subventions for both Alberta and Nova Scotia, then, as was suggested last night by the hon. member for Macleod, we might endeavour to determine by such study as is possible just about how many of these coal mines we need to close ultimately, and then determine the policy of closing these coal mines one by one, two by two or three by three, as the case may be, after warning those engaged in the coal mines concerned that their work will discontinue at a certain time. Then we would have to make provision for their reabsorption into the economy of Canada.
I think that would be a sound method of approach, and I commend it to the minister. It may be that over a long period it will not be found economically feasible to support the coal producing capacity of Canada. If so, then at least let us go about the problem in a sensible way, and endeavour to have a plan of procedure whereby the closing of our mines would inflict the least possible damage on the Canadian economy.
It has been pointed out that the processing of the coal probably offers the way out. I realize that Germany has had wonderful success in this kind of development, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. It is true that Germany has had phenomenal success in processing coal. But let us remember that Germany has 66 million people, and that they are rather closely concentrated. The result is that when products are processed from coal there is a ready market for them. Contrast that condition of population with our own. We have 15 million people thinly spread out over some 3,500 miles of territory. If a person were to establish a coal processing plant which would produce fur coats, which I understand the Germans produce, or any of the three or four dozen of the products which they have found it to be greatly to their advantage


to produce, we would be handicapped seriously by the shortage of markets locally and even from a national standpoint. The cost of transporting the finished products from Ontario to Alberta or from Alberta to Ontario or from Alberta to the Yukon would be almost prohibitive. Having that in mind, I think we shall stop looking to the processing of coal as an immediate source of remedy for the problem which confronts us, no matter how much possibility there may be in the processing of coal some time in the future-I am altogether in favour of processing, I may say.
I believe I have said about all I had in mind to say. I will repeat once more, I do believe that it would be altogether in the interest of Canada to give notice to the United States just as soon as we can, and as kindly as we can, that we do not feel that it is in the interests of the United States or of Canada that Canada should be largely dependent upon her friendly neighbour for coal or for any other fuel. After all, we intend to be a great nation. It is vitally in the interest of the United States that we should be a great nation. If calamity should befall her she would have someone on whom to rely for assistance. If we were too greatly integrated with the United States and calamity befell her it would involve us also. I do believe that if we approach the United States people in that attitude they will soon come to agree with our thinking that we should immediately proceed to import our coal needs from Alberta and from the maritimes to Quebec and Ontario. If we grant the subventions which are necessary to bring these coals into these two provinces I think probably that will prove to be the best immediate method of attacking the problem.


Mr. Barnett:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the thought-provoking speeches which have been made on this coal problem from the various quarters of the house. The story of the situation that the coal industry finds itself in has been pretty well told. I could supplement that story to some extent by the story of the situation of the coal mining industry of Vancouver island, which happens to be our oldest industry there, apart from the original furtrading period; but I believe it would be repetitious if I were to do that at this stage. I will merely say that the facts of the industry there are similar to those which other hon. members have described in other parts of the country.
In view of the kind of speeches that have been made upon this subject, which shows that some hon. members have been giving

this problem a great deal of serious attention, I found myself rather disturbed last night by the reaction that the minister appeared to have to the speech which was made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Apparently his only reaction to the serious proposal which the hon. member put forward for the development of a national fuel policy under a national fuel board was some rather flippant interjection about nationalization. I should like to suggest that if the minister is going to allow his prejudices about "izations" and "isms" or anything of that kind to stand in the way of his taking a constructive and thoughtful approach to the solution of this problem, that is not the serious attitude which should properly be taken by a minister of the crown in this country. Before this discussion is over I hope the minister will make clear that he has a more serious interest in his duties than was indicated by the remark he made in reference to the speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. At the time the remark was interjected I happened to be glancing at a report I received in my mail box, the annual report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which I notice is a company apparently owned by the government of Canada, and which has been entrusted with finances to the extent of something over $196 million.
When a minister of a government which has been responsible for bringing into being an organization of this kind takes a flippant attitude towards suggestions made in all seriousness that we should try to take an over-all look at the question of fuel in this country, then I suggest it is not in keeping with the realities of life in Canada as we have them today. I myself have suggested, for example, that we should try to seek a more co-ordinated approach to the transportation problem in this country. Certainly no two things are more important and basic in the industrial era than transportation and fuel. Therefore I wish to emphasize the importance of the suggestion being made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that this is not something which can be considered apart from other aspects of our Canadian economy; and if the minister is content to allow to continue what I would call a state of economic balkanization in the country, it will only lead to further and further troubles. Surely, in this day and age he should agree that this is something which should be approached from the over-all picture, and that we should seek in this parliament to guide and direct a policy which will be in the interests of all the people of
25, 1954	6715
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Canada, including the people who are engaged in this important industry.


Mr. Gillis:: There is a statutory vote for the coal board of $400,000. It is an old thing. I should like to call the minister's attention to the fact that there is a tariff of 50 cents a ton on bituminous coal at the United States border, but there is a drawback on that tariff of 49 cents permitted on imported coal when it is used for metallurgical purposes. We in turn have the $400,000 as some concession to the Canadian industry that uses coal for the making of steel. I would suggest that the coal board take a look at that. We are spending $400,000 on our own industry, which wipes out the effect of the tariff of 50 cents a ton. When you grant a drawback of 49 cents a ton to the importer you wipe out the effect of the tariff. If that tariff was to protect the Canadian bituminous industry in the first place, then it should remain and have that effect. To put it on and then wipe it out, because most of the coal imported is used for industrial purposes, does not seem to make sense. I am not objecting to the vote here. I think our industry is entitled to that amount of money, if we continue to grant the drawback to importers of the United States coal who use it for metallurgical purposes. I am bringing that to the attention of the coal board and the minister and I would urge them to take a look at this old statutory provision and see whether it is not having some effect in encouraging the importation of United States coal.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Cape Breton South not only today but in his speech last night during which he emphasized that we should give encouragement to the building and strengthening of our steel industry. I believe that that statutory provision was designed in the first place to encourage our steel industry. The steel industry of Nova Scotia does not use United States coal and therefore it is given the equivalent of the tariff conditions other companies enjoy.
I wish to thank hon. members for the constructive speeches they have made concerning the problems of the coal industry. I was somewhat surprised at the very mild tone of the speech by the hon. member for Lethbridge this morning. He referred to a private quarrel I had with the Social Credit party. I do not mind admitting that I do not subscribe to their theories, but in so far as the coal industry is concerned I have no quarrel with them. I would like to refer to

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys some of the remarks made in this debate, with particular reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Macleod last evening.
He referred to a question he had asked in this house some time ago and to the answer I gave at that time. He gave no notice of that question; it was directed to the Minister of Labour; and in turn it was referred to me without notice. He said my reply was a cheap political answer. He is entitled to his opinion. But I am going to say that I think his question had some political implications. However, I am very pleased with the result that seemed to stem from that question and answer. The following week the Alberta government announced they were providing $100,000 for the rehabilitation of miners, and I hope that that question and answer had some influence on their decision.
Several hon. members have asked for a national fuel policy. This is an old story. Ever since I have been in parliament that proposal has always been brought up on these estimates. But as yet I have never met anyone who could state concisely what he meant by a "national fuel policy" or "national coal policy".
This government's policy in regard to coal has been clearly stated. For the past 26 years it has been the policy of this and other federal governments to assist Canadian coal to market by means of freight subventions. Those subventions are designed to make Canadian coal competitive with the United States imported coal. By the approval of the estimates now before this house this policy will be extended for the year 1954.
Assistance to the industry has also been given in other ways, as outlined in my statement to the committee, by research, by way of loans for mechanization, and assistance to the mine operators by way of studies of preparation and mining problems. Several hon. members have rightly stressed the importance of research. In my statement I outlined some of the research projects in which this government is engaged at the present time. We have one of our fuel division engineers in Europe studying and observing the experiments being carried on over there.
Just a few days ago the report of the British fuel commission was issued and it mentioned a new process being used in France, and I think also in Holland, to convert bituminous coal to anthracite. The chief of the fuels division in the last couple of days sent word to our man in England to be sure to look at this experiment before he returns.
[Mr. Prudham.l
Other forms of energy and fuel do not come under the jurisdiction of the dominion coal board, but just for a moment I would like to refer to these other fields of fuel and energy to show how they fit into the national picture. Up until a very few months ago this government had no stated policy in regard to natural gas for the simple reason that we had no gas with which to deal. Until the government of Alberta declared a surplus of gas for export this government had no jurisdiction. I need not take up the time of the committee to review recent developments in this field, because they have already been debated and carefully examined during the present session. To put it briefly, I might state that the government's policy was outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as recorded at page 2929 of Hansard of March 13, 1953, and I quote his words:
Therefore the policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipeline across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.
The government's gas policy has not changed since that statement, and I am sure hon. members are very pleased to note the progress that has been made toward the construction of the east-west gas pipe line.
Since 1907 the federal government has rigidly controlled the export of electricity from Canada. During the last war the government initiated a project which is known as the Chalk River project for the development of atomic energy. We are all very pleased to know that Canada is in the forefront of progress in this field. Canada's atomic research is directed to peacetime application.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce announced to the house just recently that the method of development of electric power from this source is now well advanced. The hydroelectric power sources in Ontario will soon have been fully exploited, and other sources such as natural gas, atomic energy, as well as coal and oil, will, of necessity, have to be used to supplement the hydro power.
In a country developing as rapidly as Canada, we cannot have a static or rigid policy. Any federal government policy in regard to resource development must, of necessity, be flexible and capable of meeting the challenge of changing conditions.
It is all very well for Premier Manning and the Social Credit members from Alberta to try to "pass the buck" to this government by making the vague statement that we should have a national fuel policy. I say that because I have here a press clipping which

quotes Premier Manning as stating, when he announced his $100,000 fund, that the only-cure for this problem was a national fuel policy.
In 1930 the resources of the western provinces were transferred from this government to the provincial governments and with that transfer the provincial governments assumed the responsibility for the development as well as the benefit they would derive from these resources. Since 1935 the Alberta government has received in coal fees, rentals, and royalties, more than $8 million. During the same period the federal government has paid out $16,300,000 by way of freight subventions. This last figure does not include special wartime payments and production subsidies amounting to over $5,800,000. The estimates now before us provide more than $2,500,000 additional for the same purpose this year. The coal industry is suffering because of the development of gas and oil. I do not think it seems reasonable for the provincial government of Alberta to try to sidestep its responsibility with regard to coal simply by calling for a national fuel policy.


Solon Earl Low: They are not trying to sidestep their responsibility.


George Prudham: Perhaps the press report is wrong. I am prompted to say this because of the press report of what Premier Manning said.


Solon Earl Low: They are not trying to sidestep their responsibility.


George Prudham: I will accept the hon. member's statement. Because the coal industry is in difficulties, according to the press report, Premier Manning says it is up to this government to do something about it. I wonder what his attitude would be with regard to gas and oil? As long as they are making millions of dollars out of gas and oil, Mr. Chairman, you may be sure that they will consider that that is purely a provincial matter.


Mr. Casileden:: Call it one o'clock.


George Prudham: The Alberta government have done something about the coal industry. They have done considerable research and they are co-operating fully with our department. The hon. member for Macleod last night mentioned the fact that they are building a new research building and that this department is providing much of the technical staff. They have collected $8 million from the coal industry of Alberta since 1935. They are now offering $100,000 to help to move the miners out of the mining areas.
A fuel policy administered nationally would have to have teeth in it. A national fuel policy such as that asked for by several
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys members-especially by the hon. member for Macleod-would be entirely ineffective without some form of rigid control. Of course, according to my understanding of Social Credit philosophy, that would be entirely in accord with the application of that philosophy.


Solon Earl Low: The minister does not understand it.


George Prudham: I do not think anybody else does either. Such controls undoubtedly would include strict supervision of the development and production of all forms of energy. Those are powers which are beyond the scope of the federal government. Property, civil rights and natural resources are provincial responsibilities.
The federal government has an over-all responsibility to all the people of Canada for the co-ordination and the fostering of resources development. This responsibility is being discharged without regimentation and without interference with provincial rights. No one knows yet what effect gas will have on the fuel and energy situation in central Canada and no one knows what effect atomic energy will have. All these great sources of energy, including oil and coal, are the keys to the unlocking of our great natural resources. As long as this government is in power the national policy will be to encourage the best possible use of all sources of fuel and energy for all Canadians.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Solon Earl Low: No, Mr. Chairman; call it one o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Would the committee like to dispose of items 237 and 238, under the heading of dominion coal board, before we rise for lunch.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Solon Earl Low: No.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I do not take part in the debate today because I feel that I have anything important to contribute to the solution of the coal problem in Canada, but I do feel that it is essential that I take a few minutes of the time of the committee this afternoon to give consideration to some statements which were made by the minister just prior to the lunch hour. However, before I do that I should like to state briefly the impression I got from the discussion that
6718	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys has already taken place concerning this matter. I listened attentively last night and today to speeches made about the coal problem. I must say that I was impressed with the seriousness and the earnestness with which this problem has been discussed.
I particularly want to mention the speech delivered today by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. I thought his contribution to the debate was excellent and down to earth. He evidently has given a great deal of thought to this problem with which his own province is faced, and which is perhaps one of the great problems of the mari-times. I believe that the more we study what he had to say the more we will see in it by way of possible improvement in the coal situation.
I must say of course that the problem in western Canada is considerably different from the problem in the east, if for no other reason than the fact that we have been developing for some years now our oil and gas resources, and the outstanding development that has taken place has contributed in no small measure to the difficulties under which the coal mining industry carries on. We have in Alberta cheap natural gas and oil, both of which compete, in fact in many places more than compete, with coal. So there is little wonder that we have difficulty there.
It is quite true to say that the development of oil and gas in such quantities has contributed to the real problems faced by the coal people. In addition, we of course have great quantities of propane being used now far and wide by the farmers and other rural dwellers, so there is no wonder that there is difficulty. However, there are some spots which I think should begin to show a little light at the other end of the tunnel. I do not know how far we can look for relief for the coal industry to the experiments and research that are being carried out to try to find successful conversion methods. However, the other day I was talking with a man who seems to know something about conversion and he tells me that there is a good possibility that certain coals in the foothills of the Rocky mountains not too far from the city of Calgary could be converted successfully into electric power at the mine head.
The mining of the coal is quite cheap. The conducting lines for the electricity would be short enough to make possible the taking of the power to the northwestern United States and the selling of it there to the northwest power pool at a price that would make mining the coal a successful venture. I am told that there is a possibility that this sort of thing


could develop in the next few years, and I have every reason to believe that the power situation in the northwestern United States is such that the people in the area would be glad to get power from such a source as I have mentioned, especially if the conversion of the coal into power can be accomplished at a reasonable price. Therefore we might perhaps see some such thing as that.
Let us suppose for a minute that the Alberta government, interested and very much concerned as it is in the question of helping the coal industry of the province, should make the efforts that they think should be made to encourage the building of great power plants in and near the coal fields. Let us also suppose that some arrangement could be worked out with the northwestern United States power pool to buy the electrical power and that we get the whole thing worked up to the point where agreements are about to be signed. I am going to ask the minister just how far the government of the province of Alberta could go without running into a very rigid federal policy.


George Prudham: May I answer now?


Solon Earl Low: If the minister does not mind I would prefer that he answer that, along with some other points, at the end of my speech. I also have something more to say about this very subject. I draw that to the minister's attention for the reason that in his remarks this morning he seemed to forget the place that the government of Canada occupies in the control of fuel policy. I point out to him in the friendliest possible way that if Alberta were to go all out to develop the kind of thing about which I have been speaking it would not be very long until they would run smack into a rigid federal policy-


George Prudham: No.


Solon Earl Low: [DOT]-into which they would simply have to fit. They would have to come to Ottawa and get permission to export the power generated in that way.


George Prudham: No difficulty.


Solon Earl Low: I am not saying how difficult or otherwise it would be. I am not talking about difficulty. What I am talking about is the fact, and I have reason for mentioning it. I said that I probably would not have anything very important to contribute to the solution of the coal problem, but in the minister's speech before lunch he became provocative, as I shall show. I know full well that the Liberal party is having plenty of difficulties in Alberta. That is no reason at all why the minister should make his every utterance with respect to the problems

of the province cheap and political, as the hon. member for Macleod said last night. In his summary today the minister indulged in some provocative statements which I shall examine, and they were again of a cheap, political nature. I hasten to admit that is his right and privilege if he wants to do it. Certainly it is. But I also remind the minister that he must not be surprised if, when such statements are made, we who come from Alberta reply to his political utterances, and reply vigorously, even if the hour to finish up the business is late and the house is trying to reach prorogation soon.
The minister sought to excuse his indulgence in provocative speech by saying that the question that was asked by the hon. member for Macleod on March 24 had political implications. Now, Mr. Chairman, I read the question again for the consideration of hon. members, and particularly the minister. It would take some long stretch of the imagination for anybody to see political implications in this question. As I considered it again at noon, I thought it was quite straightforward. I read it from page 3289 of Hansard for March 24:
Has the government any knowledge of the report appearing in the Calgary Albertan that the coal mines in Coleman, Alberta, are to close down operations on March 31, and that other mines in the Crowsnest pass are likely to follow with shutdowns?
If so, does the government contemplate any remedial action?
I have heard many questions asked of ministers in this session of a like nature which received straightforward replies in exactly the same tone and which were satisfactory. I cannot quite understand why the minister would avail himself of that question to try to excuse the political answer he gave on that occasion by saying he thought it had political implications. The fact is that the hon. member for Macleod told me there were no political implications; he had no underhanded motives whatever. He wanted to find out the truth about the situation because here was a tragedy happening in his constituency. How can anyone say that there are political implications in a straightforward question that affects the lives and welfare of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who live in a particular constituency? I thought that the member for Macleod had been very mild in the way he asked the question.
I remember, too, on the very day, March 24, when the minister gave his reply about which the hon. member for Macleod complained last night. I thought then that some day the minister was asking for a dressing down, and he got it last night. Of course, because of that, he smarts under the dressing 83276-425
25, 1954	6719
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys down the hon. member for Macleod gave him, and as a consequence I am going to show the house just how political the minister can get by way of retribution. There were several members who took part in this debate, and who asked the minister and the government to consider adopting a national fuel policy. The minister admitted that himself. He said several members in this debate have asked for a national fuel policy. There were, and I heard them.
The interesting thing is that when he dealt with national fuel policy he came right back to pick up particularly the hon. member for Macleod, who had asked, in the same way as others had, for a national fuel policy. Then, the minister proceeded to become somewhat abusive in connection with it, but never once to the others. What does it indicate? It indicates that he continues, day after day and week after week, to smart under the difficulties the Liberal party are having in Alberta. He cannot get his mind above that. In the course of his summary before noon, he said that certain subventions had been paid by the government of Canada to Alberta producers over a period of 26 years. Those subventions were designed to make Canadian coal competitive with the United States imported coal.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what better national policy there could be than to adopt those measures which would in very deed make Canadian coal competitive with imported United States coal? But the fact of the matter is that subventions have not done so, and the best evidence of that is that we continue to import into Canada a very large tonnage of United States coal each year. What we ask for when we ask for a national coal policy is a policy that, in very deed, will make it possible for Canadian producers, no matter where they are, to compete favourably with imported coal. In this way we could develop our mines to the point where we could be self-sufficient, as the hon. member for Lethbridge so well said this morning. What safer policy could we adopt than that which would induce the production of that amount of coal which would make us, in case of emergency, self-sufficient?
While the minister admits to a certain amount of national policy, also by his very words he condemns his own policy because it does not do what he thought it was designed to do. Now, that is the situation in a nutshell. In another part of his summary my hon. friend did mention a statement that had been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as recorded at page 2929 of
6720	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys Hansard for March 13, 1953. I repeat what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said on that occasion:
Therefore the policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipe line across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.
Now, the only reason I refer to the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is that it has a direct bearing on something the minister said this morning. I should like hon. members to keep that statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in mind, because if there is a rigid policy that has been set out for governing fuels, that is the policy. When people talk about rigidity of controls, then well might we say, where can you find them more rigid than that?
The minister went on to say something like this: It is all very well for Premier Manning and the Social Credit members from Alberta to try to pass the buck to this government by making vague statements that we should have a national fuel policy. Now, why would he be so ready to go back to Mr. Manning and the Social Credit government of Alberta or Social Credit members from Alberta, in a statement of that kind? He goes on to explain he mentioned that because he had a press clipping that quoted Premier Manning as stating, when he announced his $100,000 fund for the rehabilitation of miners, that the only cure for the problem was a national fuel policy. Well, now, the hon. member for Cape Breton South demanded a national fuel policy, and others who spoke asked for a national fuel policy. But the minister had to go back and rebuke and criticize Social Credit members and, in particular, Mr. Manning, the premier of Alberta, because they asked for a national fuel policy. And he seemed to think that he had to make some political capital out of that. We have all been asking for a national fuel policy; and you now have at least part of an element of a national fuel policy, some of which is exceedingly rigid and some of which is not.
What is the harm then, what is the sin, in asking for a national fuel policy? Well, of course my hon. friend, as I said before, criticizes us particularly because he carries around a political chip on his shoulder all the time. He seems to feel that he has enemies around here.
He very wisely made the statement this morning that the coal industry is suffering because of the development of gas and oil. But he then tries to hook on to that this further statement, that he did not think that


it would seem reasonable for the provincial government of Alberta to try to sidestep its responsibilities with regard to coal simply by calling for a national fuel policy. And then, a little later on, he went on to say that the Alberta government are doing something about coal. Then he paid tribute to them for what they are doing.
I point out to the minister that the federal government, by virtue of the fact that they have accepted certain definite responsibilities in connection with mines and technical surveys, and coal, have upon them the obligation to develop a national fuel policy. We are discussing right now, as a matter of fact, item No. 237 which deals with the dominion coal board, and I notice that the minister is asking us-we are not asking him, he is asking us-to give him $10,365,014 to administer the national coal policy. And then, because we are discussing an item like that for $10 million to administer a national coal policy, he takes political umbrage at our demanding that we be given a sight of that policy that the government are not administering. That is all.
And when we ask that there be a policy, one which no province in Canada by itself could possibly lay down and carry out, from the very nature of our federal arrangement, we run into this difficulty, that the minister turns around and says he thinks it is unreasonable for a provincial government like that of Alberta to try to sidestep its responsibility with regard to coal by simply calling for a national fuel policy. I point out to the minister that the province of Alberta is not attempting to sidestep its responsibility or to throw it off on to him, or anybody else. But we do ask that, when the government or people of this country put up several millions of dollars a year for the administration of a fuel policy, they be given that policy.
That is the whole story. We feel that we have a right to ask for it and that he has no excuse for dragging it into the gutter of politics.


George Prudham: Down to your level.


Solon Earl Low: The minister said some other things which I think must bear examination. He said in the course of his speech before lunch that he wondered what the attitude of Mr. Manning would be with regard to gas and oil. And then he threw out this rather pointed statement that "as long as they are making millions of dollars out of gas and oil, Mr. Chairman, you may be sure they are considering that it is purely a provincial matter".

Now, Mr. Chairman, that was entirely uncalled for. That was straining to try to find some way to vent his political spleen, particularly in respect of Mr. Manning's attitude with regard to oil and gas-and the minister knows it. I seem to have to remind him quite often about these things. Mr. Manning and his government sought by every possible means within their power to find a good market for oil and gas when, by excellent administration, they had achieved their development. Now, in his efforts to find a market, especially for gas, he found himself up against a policy declared by the federal government, which policy forbade the government of Alberta seeking a market in the middle western United States. But Mr. Manning said that he would support the federal government policy in Canada. He also said he would co-operate to the fullest extent, Mr. Chairman, even though there were some disabilities attached to the policy with regard to the price to the producers.
It was known by everyone who had gone into the matter fully that the best market for Alberta gas would have been in the middle western United States. But we did not fight that. Mr. Manning said, "Certainly, since the federal government has laid down a specific policy, we are acquainted with it and we will work with it." That was the attitude of the premier of Alberta with respect to gas and oil. And they did not for one second attempt to say that it was a provincial matter, as the minister has charged this morning. I will repeat his words-"I wonder what the attitude of the premier of Alberta would be with regard to gas and oil. So long as they are making millions of dollars out of gas and oil you may be sure they will continue to consider that it is a purely provincial matter."
We do not. We consider that it is a federal matter, and we have co-operated, the province has co-operated, with respect to such matters. And if the minister would just try to be fair about it I am satisfied that he would say so.
We have not at all considered oil and gas as a purely provincial matter. We have fitted in with the federal policy, and we want to make it work in the interests of Canada. No matter what the minister says, he cannot get away with what he said. The Alberta government wants to be as co-operative as possible with every minister in this government, and I am satisfied that they have been so.
I want to come to one other point which I believe is very important. The minister said this morning that the Alberta government had done something about the coal industry.
83276-425J
25, 1954	6721
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys He admitted we had achieved quite a good deal in research, and he went on to say that Alberta co-operated fully with his department. Well, if that is so, why in the name of common sense did he go out of his way to attack them in this house?


George Prudham: Just answering an attack.


Solon Earl Low: Why did he go out of his way to show his political bias when, at the same time, he said they co-operated fully with his department? It is a pretty poor way to go about getting co-operation. And it was done simply because the hon. member for Macleod-and it was for no other reason- proceeded to dress the minister down for a distinctly different reason, that the minister came back and attacked the government of Alberta. In trying to cast some further reflection upon Alberta he makes the statement that the Alberta government has collected $8 million from the coal industry of Alberta since 1935. And he goes on and adds to it-for the purpose of belittling them and for no other reason-that we are now offering $100,000 to help move the miners out of the mining area. There is no other reason in the world for his putting it that way. It is just a straight case of attempting to belittle. I want to point out to the minister that he is not correct when he says that the government of Alberta collected $8 million since 1935 from the coal industry. It was not from the coal industry. What the government of the province of Alberta did in that period from 1935 was to collect something like $8 million as rental for the people of Alberta from the use of one of the people's valuable resources; that is all, a straight rental for the purpose of reimbursing the people of the province for the use of one of their resources.
I know exactly what the minister has in mind. For a good long time the policy of the Liberal party has been to dispose of the people's resources by deed of gift and so forth to political adherents so that they could work them and get the income for themselves. That has been done for many years.


George Prudham: Give us one instance.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I will give you one instance. All you have to do is to take a look at what the Sifton family got out of Alberta. I had a chance to look at it, because I was in a position to look at it, a straight deed of gift to political heelers.


George Prudham: The hon. member had better take a look into some of his own treasury house deals.


Solon Earl Low: I have had a chance to look into this, too, and all the answers the minister
6722	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys is capable of making here this afternoon will not help him to colour his case against Alberta. I say that the purpose of the statement he made about the $8 million income and the $100,000 to help the people in the mining areas was simply to try to belittle the government and minimize the truth.
I do not want to take too much more time, but I do want to end by referring to a national fuel policy. By way of showing some grievance, the minister referred to a national fuel policy such as that asked for by several members. He emphasized that asked for by the hon. member for Macleod, and said such a policy, especially that asked for by the hon. member for Macleod, would be entirely ineffective without some form of rigid controls. And he repeated, "Of course, according to my understanding of the Social Credit philosophy, that would be entirely in accord with the application of their philosophy".
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the minister to take the speech of the hon. member for Macleod and show this committee one instance, one small fraction, of difference between the national fuel policy that he asked for and the one asked for by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. There was not a single difference. He asked for a national fuel policy. That is what the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked for, and the hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings, and many others. There was not the slightest difference between them, and yet the minister comes out and tries to cast aspersions by saying "especially that asked for by the hon. member for Macleod, would have to have rigid controls and that is in accord with the Social Credit philosophy."
Let me tell the minister that the hon. member for Macleod did not advocate a fuel policy involving rigid controls at all. Social Credit does not involve any such policy. He will have to take my word for it this afternoon, because I am not going into a debate on Social Credit policy. If he wants to at some time or other I shall give him plenty of opportunity to do so, and when that time comes he will not debate it. The thing I want to point out to my hon. friend is that he has used his talents particularly for the purpose of trying to cast aspersions when he should have been doing his level best to try to work out better methods of co-operation, because I am here to tell him that we cannot possibly solve the coal problem-it is a serious one in this country- unless we have the utmost of co-operation between provincial governments and the


dominion government; and some vision, courtesy and courage. We are prepared to go into such an arrangement of real cooperation, and we will do it without getting down into the mud of politics. But we expect the minister to play the game decently.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration services-
210.	Departmental administration, $470,422.
Mr. Herridge:: I shall be only two or three minutes. I see the Minister of Finance looking rather anxiously at me. I listened with a great deal of interest to a number of speeches on the coal industry of Canada and I have every sympathy with the members who are concerned with the difficulties. I must congratulate the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond particularly, whose speech was the product of a trained mind, and who speaks with exactitude and uses language with precision. I enjoyed it very much indeed.
I just want to take two or three minutes to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that we have a number of mining communities in the southeastern section of British Columbia that are suffering from a depression as the result of a drop in the price of base metals. These communities were built up as a result of early day exploration and this has resulted in the investment of large amounts of capital in mines, in communities and in public services.
I do wish to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the companies, trade unions, and communities concerned are very anxious that he frequently nudge the elbows of his colleagues to make certain that this situation is kept under review and that everything be done that can be done to protect the interests of these people.
I am going to read briefly from a resolution I have received and then conclude, Mr. Chairman. This is the opinion of a good many organizations in the district:
The Slocan district board of trade is greatly concerned over the possibility of the United States government imposing a higher tariff on lead and zinc entering the United States.
It costs as much to produce these metals in this area as it does in the western states and we are already paying 0-75 cents a pound duty for lead and 0-6 cents a pound duty for zinc.
Any increase in the tariff would cause further hardship in an area which is already depressed due to the low price of these metals, and would certainly delay the re-opening of several properties which are hoping to operate in the near future.
We strongly urge that the government of Canada make every effort to see that Canada is not placed in the same category as those countries which are in a position to dump these metals at low prices, due to the fact that they do not pay wages near the level enjoyed by American and Canadian workmen.

Then I have a letter here from one of the local unions. They are asking for governmental attention to this question and government support, and are urging that if necessary the government take retaliatory measures, if the Americans increase the tariffs on these metals, by increasing the charges to the United States on such desirable Canadian natural resources as nickel, asbestos, uranium and any other which lends itself to that purpose.
I bring this to the attention of the minister because I promised the organizations concerned to mention it in the house before this session closed. I do urge the minister to use every means in his power to protect the interests of the mining communities concerned, and if necessary by the imposition of duties on the products suggested.


Mr. Michener:: There are two minerals produced in the province of Ontario which deserve a brief mention at this time. The first is natural gas. It may be thought by many hon. members that, because of the vast natural gas fields in western Canada, those are the only sources of natural gas in Canada. The fact is that Ontario is a very old producer and is still producing natural gas, and is discovering new fields every year. The recent discoveries of natural gas in southwestern Ontario indicate a supply which will be of considerable importance in the domestic market. I raise this, Mr. Chairman, because the minister is concerned with natural gas which crosses provincial boundaries, and my point deals with the protection of the local producers of natural gas which would seem to be the concern of both this government and the government of Ontario. Recently arrangements were made to import natural gas across the Niagara frontier and at Windsor in very substantial quantities, and I understand that substantial contracts have been made with the Union Gas Company Limited which is the main distributing agency in that area. I think the two governments who bear the responsibility in this matter should attempt to secure for the local producers of natural gas a fair share of the market when these substantial quantities of imported gas, both from the south and in due course, we hope, from western Canada, become available; otherwise the development of the many undiscovered gas pools in Ontario will be retarded and the industry stifled.
The other mineral with which I wish to deal is gold, and the provisions made under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act are, of course, a saving factor in that situation. I shall not take the time to go into the
25, 1954	6722
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys problem in detail. My concern is mainly with the gold producers of Ontario, and the fact is that of the 78 gold mines which were producing in 1939 only one-third are in operation today. As everyone knows, that is due to the double handicap of the reduction in the price of gold which they mine, amounting to $4 per ounce or 11 per cent, and the increase, on the other hand, in the cost of production, materials and labour. The cost of materials between 1940 and 1953 ranged from a 48 per cent increase in the cost of dynamite, to 246 per cent increase in the cost of spruce planking used in the mines. In the same way the cost of paper used in the mining industry rose in the same period by 100 per cent. The position of the gold producers compared with the producers of other metals is quite striking. Nickel has enjoyed an increase in price of 29 cents to 57 cents, or an increase of 97 per cent; newsprint has increased by 152 per cent, and other natural products have increased in proportion, so that this problem which has been recognized by the provision of a statutory subsidy in these estimates is one which I am sure will not be overlooked by the minister in the immediate future.
I am not one of those who believe that this condition will continue. I am confident that gold, as a monetary base, will assume its former position in due course as the basis for a broadened international trade, and I am confident that a new price, in conformity with its scarcity value and its proper relationship to other prices, will be re-established. It is significant that in March of this year the buying and selling of gold on the open market after a lapse of 15 years was resumed in London, and there are many other factors which indicate that a monetary system based on gold was one of the casualties of the war. I think that socialistic experiments will in due course be found necessary in any broadened international trade picture.
I am not going to labour that point because much business remains to be done. But I did want to make that passing reference in order to assure the minister that the Ontario producers of both these minerals are watching developments with interest.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make a speech on this occasion because I realize that a number of members of the committee have train reservations for next Wednesday and I think it would be desirable that we should not go beyond that date. However, there is a question I would like to ask the minister regarding the general administration of his department. I noticed
6724	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys on looking at the amounts indicating the requirements for increases in pay that percentagewise these seem to vary from one branch to another. I will give a few examples as I have roughly figured them out. In the administration of the department the bulk increase in salary seems to be eight per cent, whereas in the mines branch administration it seems to be seven per cent. In the surveys and mapping branch, the hydrographic part, it seems to be three and a half per cent, and in the geodetic survey it seems to be three per cent. In the international boundary commission it is two per cent, and in the legal surveys and aeronautical charts branch it is five per cent. In the map compilation and reproduction branch it seems to be ten per cent. Could the minister say something about the variation in the increases?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand my hon. friend's question. In previous years we had an establishment which was not always filled. We had positions set up and in many cases we did not have persons for those positions. That is the reason why there is a discrepancy between the various branches.
While I am on my feet I would like to answer the hon. member for St. Paul's. He asked about the control of production and sale of gas in Ontario. The Ontario government recently passed an act to control the production and import of gas into the province and it will be under that act that the gas will be controlled.


Daniel Roland Michener: I was concerned about the importation of gas because that seems to me beyond the original jurisdiction.


George Prudham: There is very close co-operation between this government and the Ontario government and if they present a problem of that kind I am sure it will receive very careful consideration.
The hon. member also mentioned the number of gold mines at present in operation and, I believe, he has been misled by our 1953 statement. Reports from the various mines that apply for gold mining assistance often come in after the close of the fiscal year. The number of mines in operation in 1953 after reports were in was 91, 63 of which were auriferous mines, 23 placer mines, and five on the free market.


Daniel Roland Michener: I was just referring to the gold mines in Ontario, not in the whole of Canada. The figures would naturally differ from those in the report.


George Prudham: Before we go further, Mr. Chairman, I should like to pay a word of
IMr. MacLean.]

tribute to the hon. member who first spoke on the estimates of this department. I refer to the late hon. member for York West. He made a quite lengthy statement and it was a very constructive one. I may say that he was always courteous. He was always an advocate of private enterprise. He believed strongly in the increasing use of gold in our economy. I believe the last words of his in the House of Commons are typical of his whole belief and attitude with regard to the importance of the great mineral resources of this country. On March 19 he concluded his remarks in this way, as reported at page 3184 of Hansard:
... I sincerely hope that I have shown you, sir, and to hon. members who may not be interested in mining as much as I am, that today the greatest internal challenge we have in Canada is the development of our natural resources.
His passing is a great loss to this parliament, to the mining community and to the whole nation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Explosives Act-
211.	Explosives Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $97,988.
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all members of the committee, especially those of this party, appreciate what the minister has said. We in this party join with him in his words of regret that the member of this committee who took such a keen interest in the minister's department was so tragically killed in the aircraft accident at Moose Jaw.
I have one question to ask on this item 211. Can the minister tell us whether the new explosives laboratory of his department which was being built out near Uplands is in operation?


George Prudham: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines branch-
212.	Mines branch administration, $81,158.
John Angus MacLean: I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out to the committee the great importance of a new metal which is being developed in this country. I have in mind its great importance in the light of new developments in the aircraft industry with the advent of the jet engine. I refer, of course, to titanium. It is a metal that has not been used commercially to any great extent up until now but it has properties which are suitable for new developments in the design of high performance jet engines. I wonder whether the minister could make a brief statement as to what progress his department is making with regard to the concentration, analysis and reduction of titanium, especially with reference to the deposits in eastern Quebec.


George Prudham: I have here a report from the deputy minister which I think will cover what my hon. friend is asking for.
The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has been instrumental in bringing together all phases of a potential titanium industry in Canada. Total annual titanium requirements in Canada are at present negligible but it is estimated that by 1960 Canada will be able to support a titanium industry about one-tenth the size of the United States industry. The largest Canadian use for titanium metal would be in aircraft manufacture.
Mines branch has assessed the technical practicability of the various titanium production methods being contemplated in Canada and has supplied the Department of Defence Production with data which might be of assistance in formulating policies with regard to government encouragement of the development of a Canadian titanium industry. The branch has given technical assistance to both Dominion Magnesium Limited, and Shawin-igan Water & Power Company during the development of their respective processes. The quality of the titanium produced by each process has been evaluated.
Primary or sponge titanium now sells for from $4.50 to $5.00 a pound in the United States. Under the pressure of competition and by taking full advantage of technical advancements, the currently-used Kroll process could probably produce primary titanium to sell for $3.50 a pound. Shawinigan estimates that a plant using its electrolytic process could produce titanium at a rate of
1,000	tons per year to sell for about $3 per pound. The Shawinigan process is a distinctly Canadian development and would use titanium raw material from Canadian ores. However, it has only been proven on a large laboratory scale, 4 pounds per day per cell. There are admitted unknowns to be encountered in expanding the scale of operations ten times, a step necessary for commercial operations. The government is assisting Shawinigan in the preliminary stages of this expansion.
The mines branch has a broad titanium research program well in hand. This program covers all phases from the treatment of Canadian titanium ores through purification of the metal to melting, alloying, forging, and casting of titanium. Knowledge gained during this program will be available to any Canadian industry engaged in titanium processing or use.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25, 1954	6725
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
217.	To provide for payments to McGill University in connection with the development of a coal-fired gas turbine. $100,000.
John Angus MacLean: I wonder whether the
minister has any further progress report that he might briefly make with regard to the research at McGill University?


George Prudham: Several hon. members were down to see the Mordell plant some time ago. Since that visit the plant has been in operation for long periods at a time, and no additional difficulties have been encountered. The men in charge of our fuels division are quite optimistic about the project. As I said in my opening remarks, the next step will be that of making practical use of it. No one knows exactly where it will find the most useful application. I know that some industrialists are looking at it with a view to producing power units. As I said, the railways are also watching it. As I mentioned this morning, one of our engineers is at present in England studying a similar effort there. We are also co-ordinating the results of the Mordell experiment with experiments in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geological survey of Canada-
Geological surveys-
218.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including the expenses of the national advisory committee on research in the geological sciences, an amount of $1,500 for Canada's share of the cost of the committee on mineral resources and geology, London, England, and an amount of $25,000 for grants in aid of geological research in Canadian universities, $2,235,425.
Daniel Roland Michener: It is interesting to note the extent to which the geological survey is taking to the air. This estimate includes $145,000 for the charter of aircraft as against $30,000 last year. This is probably significant of trends in mapping and geological surveying. I recall that an extensive aerial survey of Ontario was under way some years ago by the provincial department of lands and forests. I assume that other provinces have been doing surveys of that kind. I also assume the work at all levels of government is made available one to the other and co-ordinated so that there is no overlapping or duplication. On this particular point I would be interested in knowing what firms and aircraft are used by the department in the course of this service.


George Prudham: The department only controls one aircraft. We usually call for tenders for specific types of work, and through the air transport board the work is allotted to the firm that has the best equipment and the most favourable price. I think the increase
G726	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys that my hon. friend referred to is accounted for to a large extent by a helicopter operation that is under way at the present time between Hudson bay and Yellowknife. It is a geological reconnaissance, and a party of about eight men is able to do in one season what it would ordinarily take a ground party twenty-five years to do.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister give the name of the company whose aircraft were chartered last year and, if it is settled for this year, what company will be doing the work.


George Prudham: We hire aircraft from a great number of companies. It is difficult at the moment to give all the names, but we can do that.


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister table a list of the companies whose aircraft were chartered last year and the amount paid to each?


George Prudham: Yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: And if there are current contracts, the same information for this year.


George Prudham: Yes.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Can the minister give us a break-down of the item of $25,000 to Canadian universities?


George Prudham: The allocation of the $25,000 has not been finally agreed on for this year. Nearly all the major universities participate.
I have it for last year. The distribution last year was: University of British Columbia, $1,494 and $1,800 or a total of $3,294; Dal-housie University, $650; University of Manitoba, $1,500; McGill University, $1,500; McMaster University, $4,435; Queen's University, $4,077; University of Saskatchewan, $2,563; University of Toronto, $4,550; and University of Western Ontario, $2,410.


Solon Earl Low: Can the minister tell us what is the basis of the allocation to the universities?


George Prudham: The projects that the university is willing to undertake. I am told that we usually get about twice as many requests as we have money available for but it is used to assist projects that it is thought will be of value in the opinion of the department.


John Angus MacLean: Under this item I notice there is $1,500 for Canada's share of the cost of the committee on mineral resources and geology, London, England. Could the minister say briefly what are the activities of that committee?


George Prudham: That money is to support a continuing committee that is supported by all commonwealth countries as a clearing house


for information from the various commonwealth countries and a liaison for the exchange of scientific information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
220. Surveys and mapping branch administration, $53,012.
John Angus MacLean: I should like to make a brief comment with respect to the policy of naming new topographical features such as lakes and so on in rather remote parts of Canada in honour of certain veterans of the last war who gave their lives in the service of their country, usually under very special circumstances. I was especially pleased to learn of this scheme. It gave me pleasure because I know, for example, that a lake in northern Manitoba has been named after one of my crew who was murdered by the gestapo. Having said that, I have two "brief questions for the minister on this item. Has the vacancy on the Canadian board of geographical names, created by the death of Senator Jones, been filled or will it be filled shortly? I should also like figures on the revenue derived last year from the sale of aerial photographs by the national air photographic library.


George Prudham: Each province has a representative on the board of geographical names, and there are representatives of the department as well. They act independently of the department. Each provincial representative, I believe, submits the views of his own province with regard to names. Senator Jones' position has not been filled yet. With respect to the revenue derived from the sale of aerial photographs that does not come under this item.


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps the minister could table that information later.


George Prudham: I am told the Department of National Defence sells the photographs. They have the negatives of all photographs and any reproductions are secured from that department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian hydrographic' service-
224. Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $1,612,945.
Daniel Roland Michener: How many boats are operated by the hydrographic service?


George Prudham: There are nineteen in all. Seven are what might be termed large ships, and then there are ten launches and some other small craft.


Daniel Roland Michener: Are they in all the coastal waters of Canada?


George Prudham: Yes, as well as inland waters. The smaller launches are operated on inland waters.


Daniel Roland Michener: There is an item of $9,000 odd here for laundry and dry cleaning which I suppose is a rather unusual item in connection with the operation of these boats.


George Prudham: That would cover the linen, laundry and uniforms of the crews.


Daniel Roland Michener: Of the nineteen boats?


George Prudham: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geographical branch-
231. Geographical branch-administration, operation and maintenance, including a grant of $250 to the Canadian association of geographers, $283,385.
John Angus MacLean: Can the minister tell the committee what progress is being made in the production of the new Canadian atlas?


George Prudham: It is expected that it will be finished next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
30. Marketing service administration, $287,343.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When the minister's estimates were before the house, I made a plea on behalf of the apple growers of Canada and particularly British Columbia, that every effort be made to regain our markets in Great Britain. I asked the minister to inform the house what his department was doing in this connection. In his reply the minister overlooked my question and I should like the parliamentary assistant to give me any information he can.


Mr. McCubbin:: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, all I can say at the moment is that our deputy minister and the deputy minister of trade and commerce are attending a conference in London. Unfortunately, they are not back yet, neither have we a report from them. I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member a better answer, but I hope there will be a satisfactory answer when they come back. They were certainly going to bring up this question of apples at that conference.


Mr. Nowlan:: In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I know it was only a few days ago that Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, the president of the board of trade in Great Britain, was here. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had consultations with him, as well as did representatives of the fruit industry of Nova Scotia and possibly British Columbia. I know the British Columbia representatives were in Toronto, and I believe they also met him here in Ottawa. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could make any comments on the conference that
S upp ly-A griculture
took place here, even if he cannot make comments on the one that may be taking place on Monday in London?


Robert McCubbin: In respect to that, Mr. Chairman, I may say that during these consultations the minister mentioned the question of apples to Mr. Thorneycroft. He said that this matter would be discussed at the conference in London, so the matter was left there.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know the parliamentary assistant is always optimistic. Can he not give us an optimistic statement now?


Robert McCubbin: I am an optimist, and I am optimistic on this occasion. However, I cannot express any opinion until a report is received from those attending the conference.


George Clyde Nowlan: In connection with marketing service administration-perhaps my comments could come under this item or under a floor price item-I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary assistant to a situation which was created in the east last year. Quite frankly, I believe it reflects on the marketing administration. There was an agreement entered into, to which the department was at least a party, with respect to a marketing scheme for Prince Edward Island potatoes. Subsequently, owing to the efforts of New Brunswick members, that scheme was enlarged to embrace the potato growers of New Brunswick. With respect to that, we have no complaint whatever. I think the members from both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island deserve consideration, and undoubtedly they negotiated a proper agreement and one which, in so far as possible, safeguarded their interests.
Unfortunately, at least in so far as the scheme with respect to Prince Edward Island was concerned which was the first one and perhaps was not based on the same experience as the New Brunswick scheme, there was no provision made to provide for orderly marketing. In order to get the price that was guaranteed the growers had to get rid of their crop before a certain date, and no restrictions whatever were placed on them. As a result the growers moved the potatoes into the most available market, the market which naturally appealed to them, and that was the Nova Scotia market where everyone would like to move if they had the opportunity. Since the Prince Edward Island personnel could not move there, they moved their production and flooded the Halifax market with potatoes to such an extent that the Nova Scotia growers suffered very heavy losses. Frankly, I think somebody slipped in that connection.

Supply-Agriculture
I can remember not too many years ago when a marketing arrangement was entered into between the apple growers of Nova Scotia and the dominion government. It was not actually a marketing arrangement, but it was an arrangement into which the government entered and one of the conditions of that arrangement was that the Nova Scotia grower could not ship any apples to either Ontario or Quebec during the growing season. In other words, the growers in Ontario and Quebec were receiving some protection because of the fact that the Nova Scotia grower received some moneys from the dominion treasury. I feel the same principle should have been followed with respect to the marketing of potatoes. I want to bring that to the attention of the parliamentary assistant.
I know the parliamentary assistant is conversant with it, because the matter caused a great many headaches and many discussions. I have a file a foot thick with respect to it, containing complaints from Nova Scotia growers. I reiterate that we have no objection to any agreement entered into with the Prince Edward Island growers or the New Brunswick growers, but there should have been a stipulation attached to that contract that would not have allowed them to dump, because that is what they did, their production in Nova Scotia. They dumped these potatoes into the Halifax market and Prince Edward Island potatoes were selling far below the cost of production and shipment from the Annapolis valley to that market. The same thing happened to a lesser extent in Ontario and Quebec. There were protests from Ontario and Quebec growers with respect to that. To put it mildly, it was not an intelligent deal. As a matter of fact, to express it frankly, it was a stupid deal, and one which I believe the department should watch very carefully in future. In making marketing agreements we should see that, as a result, we do not create a disorderly market instead of an orderly market.


Mr. Charlton:: Since the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has referred to this potato situation I may say there has been considerable controversy in Ontario regarding it. I did have some correspondence with the chairman of the prices support board and I believe that the situation will be ironed out in another year. It did cause considerable concern amongst the Ontario and Quebec growers, but since the situation has been pointed out by the Ontario potato producers organization I hope something will be done about it before another year. I think I mentioned before, when the minister was here, that there seems to be a considerable

amount of difference between the postage and telephone rates in all the items. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can explain the difference this year as compared with last year.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support what previous speakers have mentioned with regard to the marketing of potatoes last year. I have no doubt representations have been made to the parliamentary assistant, because he represents Middlesex West, which is a good potato growing area.
As I have said all along, the price support program has been a dismal failure. And it has been a failure so far as the potato growers in Ontario are concerned, because the maritimers were subsidized and allowed to bring potatoes into Ontario.


George Clyde Nowlan: Please excuse Nova Scotia.


Harry Oliver White: It might be Nova Scotia next year. If the program does not apply to the whole crop right across Canada, then the result is that one group of people is paying to subsidize the other. I suggest that is not a satisfactory way to do it. I have no doubt the parliamentary assistant is aware of this situation and will probably take care of it.


Mr. Montgomery:: Since New Brunswick potatoes have been brought into the picture I think I should say just a few words. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, from Nova Scotia, and the hon. member who has spoken from Ontario, may be dissatisfied, and I think they have some grounds for their complaint. I think, too, that during the last season the department learned a good many lessons in this connection.
To be quite frank about it, I am inclined to be in favour of the present program. At least theoretically, to my mind it is a good thing. I come from a constituency which is known as one of the greatest potato growing areas in Canada, one which depends almost entirely upon the potato crop. It is clear that when people must depend upon one particular commodity to sustain their economy they are in great difficulty when something goes wrong.
Down my way certainly the people are not all happy, but there are some who are. I am in hopes that the department has learned its lesson. If such an agreement is entered into in another year I believe all the provinces asking for the agreement should start off on a target date. In other words, one province should not be allowed to enter the agreement before another and start selling its potatoes earlier. While Nova Scotia may have a complaint, we certainly had one

during the fall and previous to January 1954. Because, as soon as the Prince Edward Island board entered the picture, they knocked the price down on the market. This meant that anyone else who tried to arrange steady and orderly marketing could not do so. However, when New Brunswick came on the market under a board, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick boards co-operated. If Nova Scotia wants to enter the picture with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick they will have to have a board.
I think it should be insisted upon that a certain date be fixed at which all boards will begin to operate. So long as any one board is operating separately there will be some difficulty.
Then there is another point I would like to mention. This spring in my area there were a few farmers left with practically 90 per cent of their potatoes on hand, either in their cellars or in their potato houses. They just could not get rid of them, although they had signed up with the board. Only a few days ago I received a letter from a man who still had 90 per cent of his potatoes, and who claims he signed up early in the winter. However, the board has never called for any of his potatoes. This man is only one of a certain number who find themselves in that position. They have to take a loss, because they get nothing unless they deliver their potatoes to the board. On the other hand, those who got rid of their potatoes received more money than if they had been operating on a free market.
It may be urged that this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Agriculture, and that may be true. I suggest however that the federal department might use considerable influence, and if the growers want a floor price, the department could say to them, "You must take the potatoes from the farmers on a percentage basis, similar to that which obtains in connection with wheat deliveries in the western provinces, where they take so many bushels per acre." In this way one farmer would not be able to sell three or four thousand barrels of potatoes while another has to hold his until the following April or May.
Anyone who knows anything about the potato business knows very well that after May 10 potatoes shrink very quickly, unless they are in a very cool potato house. Once that starts the inspector comes along, and there is tremendous shrinkage. You find you cannot sell your potatoes, because we know that the consumers will not buy potatoes that are shrivelled and sprouted. Once potatoes have sprouts about ten inches long they lose their flavour and will not sell. So it is important that every farmer be treated
Supply-Agriculture
as nearly as possible in the same way, so that everything would be sold through a marketing board.
I am wondering if Ontario really suffered very much. Had a board been set up in this province I doubt very much whether they would have been guaranteed a price greater than would have been in line with the cost of production and the movement of their potatoes to the market in Ontario. I doubt very much if they lost money because boards are operating in the maritime provinces. And before I take my seat I would draw the attention of people in Ontario who are producing potatoes, or producing anything else, to the terms of confederation which state that we are to have some preference when entering this market.


John Alpheus Charlton: The parliamentary assistant has not answered my question concerning postage and telephones.


Robert McCubbin: I intend to answer, but I have been listening to the potato discussion, and I wished to deal with all those subjects when I spoke. I will not forget what the hon. member has asked.


John Alpheus Charlton: I believe that is the end of the potato discussion.


Robert McCubbin: As the hon. member for Middlesex East has said, I come from a potato growing district. Many of the farmers in my constituency produce potatoes. The criticism I have heard from three hon. members is one I have heard in my own riding. In Ontario we could have come under a cooperative marketing plan, just as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have. Nova Scotia could have done so, too. Unfortunately in Ontario this year we have not done that. The result has been that potatoes have been coming into Ontario from those other two provinces and depressing our market. Our potato growers do not like that. It is hard to overcome, of course, unless we have a potato marketing scheme of our own -which we hope we will have in other years. It was my privilege just a few months ago to go down to North Carolina, in the United States, which is a great potato-growing state, as hon. members know. In that state there is a market for a lot of the maritime potatoes. They like our potatoes. I was glad to hear them say they liked the potatoes that come from the maritime provinces. The committee knows that 95 per cent of the seed in that state comes from Prince Edward Island, which speaks well for the potato growers of that province. That is the way we like it, but nevertheless in that state I heard the same criticism that is heard here, that some

Supply-Agriculture
other states farther west were growing potatoes and shipping them over their borders and depressing their markets. The problems that we have here are the problems that they have down in the United States as well.
Of course we like to have interprovincial trade even though it sometimes hurts us; but we hope, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned, that next year we shall be able to work it out on a better basis even though we did suffer during the past year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
31. Agricultural economics, $630,153.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I should have dealt with this when the hon. member for Kootenay West asked his question about apples, but I thought it came more directly under agricultural economics. On June 11, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question about the likelihood of our getting a substantial order in re-entering the United Kingdom market for apples, because I had noticed press reports to the effect that the United Kingdom had indicated they were able to allocate dollars for the purchase of cheese. That indicates that as a result of the improvement in their economic situation over there they should be able to become once again a substantial purchaser of food from this continent. That certainly is our hope. I understand it is theirs. However, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in answer to the question on June 11, as reported at page 5829 of Hansard:
So far as fruits are concerned, we have had an indication that the United Kingdom is allocating dollars to cover purchase of certain canned fruits, but negotiations regarding apples are still in progress.
That was confirmed by what the parliamentary assistant has just said to the hon. member for Kootenay West, as I understood the answer. Since the United Kingdom is again becoming a potential market for Canadian agricultural produce, there is no group of agricultural producers in this country more interested in re-entering that market than the apple producers, and particularly those of British Columbia, I venture to say, to whom that market was more important than to any others. Perhaps my hon. friend from Nova Scotia might say it was equally important to them, but certainly it was very important to the apple producers of our province. In the discussions with the United Kingdom, is anything being said or done with respect to obtaining some concessions on the tariff treatment accorded to Canadian apples? The parliamentary assistant will remember that up until 1947 or
[Mr. McCubbin.l
1948 we enjoyed a preferential tariff with the British market which was abandoned. Coincidentally with the abandonment of that preferential tariff, the British stopped buying anyway because of the shortage of dollars. The indications are now that they will be a potential apple-buying country. Is anything being done to restore to us that advantageous position in the British market which was of such great benefit to our apple producers?


Robert McCubbin: Every avenue that can be explored is being explored. That market has been a good one in years gone by for British Columbia apples as well as Nova Scotia apples, and we hope it will be some time in the future, and I hope that the future is not too far away. I am sorry I cannot give a more favourable reply, but I am always optimistic. Unfortunately I cannot give any better reply at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant does know what lines of approach are being taken by the Canadian delegations. Were any instructions issued to them on the basis of which we shall be able to say we are exploring this line or that line?


Robert McCubbin: Every avenue that can be explored is being explored. We are doing that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are we justified in assuming from that that this line of approach is being pursued?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, every avenue.


John Alpheus Charlton: I want to ask the parliamentary assistant a question about the cheese deal with Great Britain this year. Has he anything to say about that?


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry; I cannot give an answer to my hon. friend except that he knows as well as I do that the Ontario people are over there right now and are trying to enter into negotiations with the British for the purchase of Canadian cheese. We have not had any report from them as yet.


John Alpheus Charlton: I hope that the dominion Department of Agriculture and the dominion government are doing more to help the Ontario producers this year than they did last year to sell the cheese.


Robert McCubbin: They will help them every year.


John Alpheus Charlton: They did not help last year.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not intend to enter into any discussion on this matter of agricultural economics, although frankly I was the one

who asked to have it stand over because I knew that the hon. member for Kamloops had something to bring up. I also had something I wanted to raise at this time. I do not think now is the opportune time to do it because of the schedule under which we are working.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have until the end of next week.


George Clyde Nowlan: 
John Horace Dickey: For the cow?


George Clyde Nowlan: 
Mr. Jones:: I should like to add a word to what the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Kootenay West have already said about the British Columbia apple industry. The minister is fully aware that for the last thirty years our apple industry has been geared up to the United Kingdom demand for apples. We pruned trees, planted varieties and did everything we could to meet the demands of that market, and that was done at the original suggestion of the federal government. We carried out their wishes to the best of our ability to produce the exact type of apples they wanted in the United Kingdom. I understand the situation today is that the British people like our apples very much, but before they can import them they require some sort of concession on the part of the Canadian government whereby there will be a balance of trade. Does the parliamentary assistant know if any concession has been offered with a view to regaining the market in Britain for apples? One other question. In connection with the negotiations now taking place, is there a member of the fruit industry from British Columbia taking part in these negotiations?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, I understand there is no one from the fruit industry at this conference in London but, as I told the hon. member for Kamloops, every possible avenue is being explored, and everything we can do will be done. When the delegates

Supply-Agriculture
report back perhaps some of the things mentioned will require to be taken into consideration, but I cannot, of course, comment on that at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the parliamentary assistant know whether our delegation has been authorized to make any offer which would make it possible for us to get back into this profitable market?


Robert McCubbin: No, they have a wide open field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
44. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,899,245.
Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, just before this item is carried I might just say that I do not want to enter into another discussion this afternoon on the P.F.R.A. and I do not intend to say anything controversial at this point. I simply want to say that I was in western Canada last week and visited my own constituency for a few days. As hon. members know, that is the constituency that would be most affected favourably by the Saskatchewan river dam project. I merely wish to tell the government this afternoon, though I observe there is no minister present and, of course, the parliamentary assistant does not attend the meetings of the cabinet-


An hon. Member:: There is one minister here.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not notice the Secretary of State, but perhaps he will be able to carry my message. I want to tell the minister that, having just returned from my own constituency, I know there is considerable disappointment at recent statements that have been made in regard to this project. I want to say on behalf of my constituents that they hope that consideration will be given to this matter in the near future so that it can be proceeded with without delay. It may be said at the moment that irrigation is not necessary. I quite agree that, with some farms under three to six feet of water, it does not seem to be the time to be discussing irrigation. But those of us who have lived in western Canada for 40 years or more, as some of us have done, know there are periods when there is dry, drought weather, which involve the country in very large expenditures for feed and for the relief of the stricken population. It seems to me that, when we have wet years, that is the time to prepare for the dry years which must inevitably follow. I do not wish to discuss this subject in a controversial manner this afternoon or to argue once again in favour of it, but all I would simply say

through the parliamentary assistant, or the Secretary of State, if you like, is that the people I represent in this house are very anxious to have this matter settled and proceeded with. They feel the provincial government has made a generous offer to bear a large part of the expenditure, indeed larger than I anticipated the province would or should be called upon to bear, but that offer has been made and they are prepared to stand by it. I am taking this opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity this session, to express the hope that serious consideration will be given to this project and that it will be undertaken in the near future.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to delay the committee at this period of the session but this matter is of such importance to the people of Saskatchewan that I think hon. members will forgive me if I take a few moments to deal with it, especially in view of the fact that it is several years since I have spoken on this matter in this house. Members will have seen the answer which was given to the question I asked of the ministry and which was reported in yesterday's Hansard, and that answer discloses a situation which I would like to draw to the attention of the government.
I am aware of the fact that the Prime Minister and the government have taken the attitude that they will recommend this South Saskatchewan river dam project if they are satisfied that the required expenditure is warranted as in the public interest. I would like to say that it is the attitude, certainly at least of the majority of the people of Saskatchewan, that they can have great faith in the fairness of the Prime Minister and the present government. They are satisfied that if and when a case is made out for the construction of this project it will be unhesitatingly proceeded with. It is in that spirit that I make these few remarks this afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the hon. member think a case has been made out? I am quite sure he does.


Walter Adam Tucker: As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the project should be proceeded with, but I realize that we must convince the people of the other nine provinces of Canada, and it is with that idea in mind that I speak. I feel that if we can place the facts before our fellow citizens in the other provinces of Canada and the Prime Minister and prove that we have a good case then I have no doubt as to what the decision will be.
The answer to the question I asked yesterday discloses a situation which must lead

our people to ask themselves how the problem it discloses is to be met. 1 asked what the population of Canada was according to the census of 1941, and I then asked what the estimated population was now, and for the population of the various provinces in 1941 and now according to the latest estimates. The answer I received is to be found at page 6609 of Hansard and it reveals that the population of Canada as of June 2, 1941, excluding Newfoundland, was 11,506,655. The estimated population as of June 1, 1953, was 14,398,000, also excluding Newfoundland. That shows that our country had had a splendid increase in population during that time, and an increase that should make every Canadian gratified. We had an increase, without considering Newfoundland, of 25-6 per cent. In other words, in that period of a little bit over a decade our population had increased by one-quarter. But when one looks at the population of Saskatchewan, instead of our sharing in that great development in which we all take such pride we find that our province's population has decreased during that period by 3 per cent. It is the only province in Canada which had a decrease during that period.


Mr. Gour (Russell):: That is because they have a C.C.F. government.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the reason, and the hon. member knows it.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is pointed out that there is a C.C.F. government there and that that is the reason for lack of development. But I am also saying that other things should be taken into consideration as having to do with that situation.
During that same period Prince Edward Island had an increase in population of 11-5 per cent; Nova Scotia, 14-7 per cent; New Brunswick, 17-2 per cent; Quebec, 28-1 per cent; Ontario, 29-3 per cent; Manitoba, 10-9 per cent; Saskatchewan, as I say, had a decrease of 3-9 per cent. Alberta had an increase of 25-9 per cent; British Columbia, an increase of 50-4 per cent; Yukon, an increase of 83-2 per cent; Northwest Territories, an increase of 33 per cent. There is the picture of our growth that I think every Canadian should look at. If there is anything that can be done by the federal government to see to it that Saskatchewan shares with the rest of the country in that great forward march, I think it should be done. I am sure that everybody in all the rest of the provinces of Canada would be ready to do anything within reason to help us to share in that development. When it is remembered that every other single province has had a tremendous increase in population, that our
Supply-Agriculture
country as a whole has had an increase of 25 per cent, and that we in Saskatchewan have gone back during that period of the greatest development our country has ever known so far as population is concerned, it seems to me that we have a case to put before not only this government but the provincial government.
A royal commission was set up to make an investigation into this matter. I do not intend at this time to go into this matter otherwise than to suggest a few important points. The royal commission considered the question of irrigation and the advantages of irrigation. I would point out that, from that standpoint, there is a strong case to be made out for the construction of this as an irrigation system. It can irrigate about half a million acres. In periods of drought those half million acres would produce feed and fodder which would help to maintain our livestock industry in a substantial part of the province. That result in itself, outside of the increased production on irrigated lands, would have, in stabilizing our agriculture, an effect which it is hard to estimate.
Any farmer who went through the period of the drought in the thirties and who had perhaps spent almost a lifetime in building up a herd of valuable cattle knows what happened. It got to the point where the dominion government, to try to help us out, was even fetching in fodder from as far away as Nova Scotia. Obviously the attitude had to be taken that as much livestock should be disposed of as possible. The farmers had to dispose of cattle at as low as one cent a pound. Herds were practically wiped out and the savings and work of hardworking people disappeared because of what happened. Had there been a place in the province, 500,000 acres in extent, which could have been put to growing fodder and feed, that situation would not have needed to develop.
The farmers in Saskatchewan realize that, while we are having plenty of rain today, just as sure as they live in that great central plain, drought will come again. They also realize that if nothing fundamental is done, they are going to be up against the same difficulty again, that of not having feed and fodder for their herds. That realization has a deterring effect upon the building up of our mixed farming industry in Saskatchewan.
Surely if we want to increase our population we must encourage our people to go into mixed farming and not to go more and more into the field of bigger and bigger grain farms. When the latter course is followed, it means, of course, that farm people have to go elsewhere in order to make a living as

Supply-Agriculture
farms get bigger and bigger, and bigger machinery is used. The people in the rest of Canada I am sure are deeply interested in seeing to it that the farming population of Saskatchewan is not cut down year by year because, of course, in the long run that cut will also mean that the urban population of Saskatchewan will begin to diminish.
There is another angle to the irrigation problem. There are people who need to be settled upon land. Irrigation would provide farms upon which we could resettle many people who are today looking for land. It would help in that regard. So much for the advantage of the scheme from the irrigation standpoint.
Then there is the question of electric power. The province of Saskatchewan today is engaged on a program of farm electrification. Last year I think they connected almost
6,000	farmers with electricity. While I was in the legislature out there, I unceasingly took the attitude that if we were going to halt the trend of farmers away from the farms and into the cities, we had to give the people on the farms the same amenities of life and the same comforts as they would have if they lived in the city. One of the ways in which that may be done is by having electricity on the farms.
The government of Saskatchewan has embarked upon an energetic farm electrification program which I advocated strongly and which I am glad to see now being gone ahead with. We are told that 75,000 farms in Saskatchewan can be connected economically with electricity. That program not only will tend to keep people happily on the farms but it will also promote mixed farming. It will make it more profitable. It will make mixed farming more efficient and it will make it possible to do it more economically. If we can in that way halt the trend away from the country and into the cities, and halt the trend away from mixed farming to large grain farming, by constructing this dam project thereby making electricity available more cheaply-and especially when the provincial government is ready to pay the cost of that feature of it-surely it is something that should be done. But it cannot be done unless the dam is put in there. That is an important consideration.
There is also the matter of industrial development. We realize that the reason why some other provinces have gone ahead so fast is that they have benefited by great industrial development. To have industrial development you need minerals and electricity. You need gas, perhaps; but above all, you need plenty of water for most modern industrial processes. In most of the settled area of
fMr. Tucker.]
Saskatchewan there is not a large constant supply of water. It looks as though we have plenty of natural gas to provide for a great increase and expansion in industry. But, in order to have that increase, we need to have plenty of water for industrial purposes. That is a feature that I think was not given due weight in the report of the royal commission. The royal commission dealt with the question of irrigation and dealt with the question of electricity. They dealt with those two items mainly, but they did not deal with the social value of this project from the standpoint of laying the foundation for the overall expansion and development of our province.
So far as the question of developing electricity and irrigation is concerned, it is quite true that for some time the project perhaps will not much more than pay interest on the capital invested by the federal government. I think that it will do that in a very short time after it is completed. I think the studies showed that the increase in agricultural production would amount to at least $6 million in value, taking the value of that production at average prices for farm products over a long term. The way things stand today I think we can look for prices not to go back to the low level of previous years, but even with that conservative estimate the increase in value of agricultural production would be at least $6 million. I think it also is the experience that if you have an increase in the income of your farmers by $6 million it will lead to an over-all increase in the income of other people by at least twice that amount, which suggests that at the very minimum the increase in production as the result of this irrigation project would be at least $18 million.
About 20 per cent of the national income is paid in taxes, and 20 per cent of $18 million would amount to $3-6 million. If you consider what the dominion would have to spend on the project, even assuming that it would be far more than the amount of $70 million envisaged by the last conference of experts, even supposing that the dominion would have to spend $100 million, with the government getting their money at approximately 3-J per cent the amount of $3-6 million I have just mentioned will carry the interest on $100 million. That is from the irrigation aspect alone. On top of that you have to consider that there will be cheaper electricity and plenty of water provided right in the midst of the settled area of Saskatchewan which is bound to lead to a tremendous industrial expansion because we have the other necessary element the minerals there.

We have 80,000 square miles of the PreCambrian shield right in Saskatchewan. This is the same shield, the same mineral formation, that is providing the iron in Labrador, the same formation that has resulted in the establishment of various mines in northern Manitoba and Ontario.
If Saskatchewan could get electricity and plenty of water, instead of being the weak link in the development of our country it would, I am satisfied, become one of Canada's soundest and strongest links. That is a feature to which I suggest the royal commission did not give enough attention, the effect that the project would have upon the industrial development of our province.
As I said at the outset, I do not intend to impose on the good will of the committee at this particular moment, but I suggest that we recognize the fact that in the past hundred years we have had at least three bad periods of drought in western Canada. I have been told by people who went into that area in the nineties that it was so dry that there were cracks in the ground into which a horse's leg would go. I went through the period of drought in the thirties. If hon. members had seen what some people had to go through during that period they would certainly want to do something about it so that when drought comes again, as come it will, the people of that part of Saskatchewan will feel that their fellow citizens in the rest of Canada have taken concrete steps to try to protect them against a recurrence of the worst effects of that terrible experience.
The people of Saskatchewan appreciated the attitude of the rest of Canada in providing them with help during the last drought period, not only help in the form of grants of money but in supplying them with vegetables and other things to help them over that difficult period. But the people of Saskatchewan would like the people of the rest of Canada to take steps to enable them to fight what lies ahead themselves without having to ask for assistance.


Major James William Coldwell: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what I say to my fellow citizens of the rest of Canada. You were generous when we needed help in the thirties. You did not hesitate to put through a very fine measure of help in the form of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to protect our farmers in the event of drought. This has been a great thing for the farmers of western Canada. We have one of the finest systems any place in the world under P.F.R.A. of bringing light land under grass, providing small irrigation schemes, dugouts and so on. I have been told by people who have some
Supply-Agriculture
experience in these matters that the P.F.R.A. scheme put into effect by the people of Canada for western Canada is one of the finest in the whole world.
The scheme I am now suggesting will cost quite a bit more than any of these other projects, but with Canada strong financially and in every other way, with Canada still rapidly growing in strength and having in mind the things that we could do in the thirties and forties, surely we can say now that here is a scheme that will provide a really solid foundation which will carry and supplement these other things if we run into a bad drought again. I suggest that the saving by the irrigation of the land alone in respect of the P.F.A.A. will amount to close to half a million dollars a year on the average. A saving of that proportion will be well worth while in helping to pay the cost of carrying this dam proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know that it is already referred to in that way by a lot of people in western Canada. I hope that it is regarded otherwise here-as something in connection with which we may look to our fellow citizens of the rest of Canada with confidence. We take pride in what is being done in other parts of Canada. Now, above all, western Canada takes great pride in the fact that Canada said that, if necessary, she would go it alone on the St. Lawrence seaway proposition, that she would no longer be held up by the unwillingness of the United States to participate. I say, Mr. Chairman, that far away as we are from the St. Lawrence, there was no place in all Canada where there was more approval of that attitude of the government of our country than there was right in Saskatchewan.
We are great supporters of the idea of the development of our country. The people of Saskatchewan, coming as they do from pretty well all parts of the western world, have become a group of people who have a very firm devotion to Canada as their country. The people of Saskatchewan are 100 per cent behind anything they see that will help Canada to stand on its own feet, anything that is necessary to lay the foundation for an even greater country. All we ask is that the people of Canada generally look at our situation and realize clearly that we do not want to be the weak link in the chain of the development of our country in an agricultural way, with the possibility of another drought hanging over our heads. All we ask is that our fellow Canadians realize that we are not experiencing the great development that is being experienced in the rest of Canada, that our sons and daughters are

Supply-Agriculture
having to leave Saskatchewan and go elsewhere to make a living, that our population is going down while that of the rest of the country is going up. We say to the rest of Canada: We rejoice in your prosperity and development but give us a chance to pull our weight. If you will give us that chance you will have reason to be proud of Saskatchewan just as Saskatchewan is proud of Canada.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot very well refrain from saying a word or two in this discussion since my own city is the city which, of all cities in Canada, would benefit most from the proposed dam. I too am not going into any controversial aspects of the question, and I congratulate the hon. member for Rosthern on the very good speech he has made. I am glad to hear he is totally in favour of the project. We will have to change the minds of some of the people of Canada and we will have to change the mind of the Prime Minister. While I do not agree with him, may I say that I admire the honesty and integrity of the statement the Prime Minister made when he said that he did not yet see that the national interest would be served by this amount of money on this particular project. I think that is an honest attitude. The only thing to which I have ever objected in the speeches that have been made by hon. members on the other side of the house is that this project has been used, I am afraid, as political bait before elections. I believe the Prime Minister's forthright statement previous to the last election, and it was an honest statement, has done much to clear the air in that regard.
I was afraid the hon. member for Rosthern was going to get off the track on which he had promised to keep when one of his colleagues interjected something about the population of Saskatchewan having decreased because we had a C.C.F. government there. Both the hon. member who made the interjection and my hon. friend who, for the last five or six years, has been fighting that government, know perfectly well that is not true.


Walter Adam Tucker: If my hon. friend says I know that quite well, I will not accept it because I believe that, if it had not been for the fear of that government during at least its first two years, private capital would have entered the province and we would have had a greater development than we have.


Major James William Coldwell: There was a drop in population before the C.C.F. government took office.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend was going to leave politics out of it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not mention it until my friend suggested I knew something which I did not say. I tell him that I believe the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government has contributed substantially to the failure of our province to develop faster than it has. If my hon. friend wants my belief from me, he gets it; that is what I believe.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Saskatoon has the floor and cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Walter Adam Tucker: I rose on a question of privilege. The hon. member suggested I had said something I knew perfectly well was wrong.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I want to say to the hon. member for Rosthern-


Walter Adam Tucker: I tell him that he himself knows his own city would have had greater development. A big metal smelting plant would have been established in Saskatoon instead of Edmonton if natural gas had been found shortly before it was. The provincial minister of highways said that just the other day.


Major James William Coldwell: The Liberals in power found no gas.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What I said was, the hon. gentleman who interjected tried to persuade my hon. friend from Rosthern to adopt the idea that the reason for the decrease in population in Saskatchewan was due to a C.C.F. government, when he knew, and the hon. member for Rosthern knew, that that was not the fact. I did not suggest the hon. member has not always told what he believed upon every occasion upon which he has been attacking the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan. In so far as this point is concerned, the hon. member has started something and I do not want to continue it. I could talk for 40 minutes on this, if I wanted to do so, but no one wants to hear me and I do not want to do so.
However, the hon. member for Rosthern did say something about Saskatchewan being the weak link in the development of Canada. He said, in rebuttal of what I had suggested, that apparently it was still the weak link in Canada because people could not invest their money as a result of the fear of the Saskatchewan government. I would refer him, therefore, to a survey made by Professor Britnell of the University of Saskatchewan, a man for whom people have the highest respect for his ability as an economist, a man who has gone to foreign countries to assess situations and been

greatly praised for his findings. I find that Professor Britnell, at page 450 of the report, had this to say:
Thus, over a five-year period, annual capital expenditures exactly doubled in Alberta, increased by 71 per cent in Saskatchewan, but-
Why should I read about Manitoba?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: All right.
... by only 21 per cent in Manitoba, as compared with 61 per cent for the whole country.
I am not suggesting the hon. member for Rosthern does not tell the truth. I am simply giving Dr. Britnell's findings in the economic survey, which, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to accept. The total investment in Canada from 1948 to 1953 went up by 61 per cent. In Saskatchewan, it went up by 71 per cent, or 10 per cent higher than the national average. I did not intend to start any controversy, but then I do not mind taking on my hon. friend any time either in Saskatchewan or elsewhere. My hon. friend has been doing his best out there for the last six years and now he is back here. I shall say no more about that.
I was going on to say a word about the causes of the decrease in population. I must not say what my hon. friend knows quite well, because he will assert something else. My hon. friend has been playing around too long with the Minister of Agriculture, so he has various answers to fit various occasions. However, everybody knows that the depopulation of Saskatchewan, if indeed it is serious enough to be called that, has been due to the mechanization of the farms. My hon. friend knows that. It is also due to the fact-


Walter Adam Tucker: Your hon. friend does not know that at all. The same thing has happened in the rest of Canada; so far as mechanization is concerned they have had it too, and their population has gone up.


William Alfred Robinson: I must ask the hon. member to allow the hon. member who has the floor to proceed without interruption.


Walter Adam Tucker: Let him not say that I know something that I do not know. Let him make his own speech.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not believe the hon. member has any point of privilege, and therefore the hon. member for Saskatoon should be allowed to proceed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am rather pleased that my hon. friend has returned-


Walter Adam Tucker: Let the hon. member for Saskatoon deal with the matter before us.
Supply-Agriculture


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The hon. member has been so quiet these last few months, we have hardly been able to believe it. I am quite intrigued that he is coming back into character. This mechanization did have a serious effect on the population, and it occurred at the time the boys went to the last war. They went to the last war to serve their country, and when they returned from overseas they found the farms mechanized to such an extent there were much larger farms and there was no place for many of them to fit in.
Let me again congratulate my hon. friend upon what he said. I shall not say what he said or did not say, because that is not safe. I do want to say a word about this business of rainfall. Some people have argued that this dam is not necessary because this year we have a lot of water, in fact perhaps too much so far as wheat is concerned. What we need in Saskatchewan to increase our population is a change in the type of farming; that is, to some extent to get away from wheat farming and get to the farming of such things as beet sugar, cattle and all the rest of it.
What rain we have had this year, and we have had plenty, is not yet sufficient for that type of farming. If we had a rainfall which would permit successful mixed farming of that type, to grow beet sugar and the like, it would be so great it would simply ruin our wheat crop. We have to have water, therefore. What we do want is water in a moderately dry climate; water which must be put on that land by artificial means. We will have a new type of farming. I do not believe we will have the same farmers we have now. I doubt very much if the same farmers in Saskatchewan will be willing to get out with a hoe, a shovel and in long rubber boots to push water around the place. They have been on a tractor too long for that.
This whole question ties up with immigration. We will have people, for instance, from Holland, a country that does that sort of work. We can get very good people if we can show them an area where there is irrigation. We would not get them to come there and carry out practices which it had not been their life's work to do. When the Canadian Pacific irrigated the land around the Bow river there was no difficulty whatever in selling the farms at high prices for those days, $75 an acre to people from the United States who had been working on irrigated land. So they came in there and, so far as I know, they have prospered. At any rate they have done their own province of Alberta and Canada as a whole some good. I would like to see more of that sort of thing in Saskatchewan.

Supply-Agriculture
In the circumstances I shall not say more. I must say I was surprised a moment ago to hear that here in the house we are operating tonight on a schedule. I hope that is true, although I am afraid that perhaps it is not. In any case, owing to circumstances, I shall not pursue the argument any further. I hope that from now on this dam will be something to which we can look forward. And if I may take the risk of again incurring the anger of my hon. friend, I would suggest that I hope he or the Minister of Agriculture or any other Liberal speakers from now on will not use this subject any more as political bait, until the head of the government of this country and the cabinet make up their minds that, in all circumstances, this expenditure is justified from the point of view of the good of the whole nation, as I believe it to be.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see this vote for P.F.R.A., but I am sorry that, to date, the government has not seen fit to extend its application to British Columbia. We all realize its excellent advantages more and more as we hear discussions between members from both sides of the house.
For years the farm organizations in British Columbia have been urging the government to extend the terms of this act to British Columbia. And my British Columbia colleague from Kamloops has been foremost in the House of Commons in advocating this same policy. I wish to say that I support that request, and I trust that when these estimates come before us again the legislation will be so amended that there will be provision for this type of work in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow this item to pass without making my bow to the hon. member for Kootenay West for the way in which he also has agitated for the extension of this act to British Columbia.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to carry forward the discussion on the Saskatchewan dam. It is not because I lack interest in it, because I do feel it is very important to all the western provinces. But I would like to bring to the attention of the committee again the problem of conservation and flood control on the Assiniboine river. We do not hear very much about this subject.


Mr. Harris:: That would come under item 50.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am referring to a P.F.R.A. project.


William Alfred Robinson: Item 50 deals with the Assiniboine river, diking and cut-off.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It could come under that item or, I suggest, it could come under this one.
	'


Walter Edward Harris: Go ahead; speak up.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The only time we have any discussion of this subject is during the annual consideration of the estimates. Perhaps the reason we do not hear so much about it is that members from Manitoba are not so vociferous as members from Saskatchewan. This subject has been under consideration since 1886. Last year when I questioned the Minister of Agriculture on the matter he referred me to a report on conservation and flood control on the Assiniboine river that was prepared by the P.F.R.A. branch, and completed and published in December, 1952.
I discover in that report a very comprehensive consideration of the whole problem. I raise this matter at this late hour in the session because throughout the day, today, over the radio I have been hearing that flood conditions on the Assiniboine river have reached the city of Brandon, and that the mayor of that city has requested that a large section of the low-lying area be evacuated.
The last press dispatch I have on the subject, dated Saturday, June 19, appears in the Brandon Daily Sun as follows:
The city works department employees are busily engaged in building temporary dykes and the civil defence committee is preparing emergency accommodation for use in case evacuation of the homes in the threatened area becomes necessary.
That has now become necessary, and once again the flood tide is rolling through the Assiniboine basin. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because he is fully cognizant of the problem. In 1950, when the Assiniboine river last reached flood level, he made a personal visit to the area and examined the situation for himself. The report to which I have referred recommends two major projects in flood control and conservation in the Assiniboine basin. I refer to the Russell reservoir at Russell, Manitoba, and the Portage la Prairie diversion. These two projects are actually proposed in connection with the larger flood program in the city of Winnipeg. Because, as hon. members know, the Assiniboine eventually flows into the Red river at Winnipeg.
I should like to ask just what has been done in regard to the report published in 1952. As I indicated, the minister said last spring when we were considering the estimates that the matter was under consideration. As this condition has been developing from 1886, and has been under consideration since that time, I would hope this year that some specific information might be available as to what the department contemplates in regard to the recommendations of the report.


Mr. Harrison:: I should like to say a word or two regarding the Saskatchewan dam

development. I am somewhat in agreement, for a change, with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, in what he said the other evening.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps this is the best time to do so. It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



FINAL REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Mr. Speaker:: If I may have the indulgence of the house, I would like to present the second and final report of the special committee appointed to consider the procedure of this house. It is not intended to move concurrence in this report at this sitting.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 434, for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to certain hon. gentlemen opposite. I listened this morning to the very eloquent words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in another context, in which he said he thought it was a queer sort of democracy where one person could say no and deny something to three people who want to say yes. He said in another context that he thought the will of the majority should prevail and the will of the minority should not be allowed to thwart it. It seems to me, sir, that everything that can usefully be said on this bill has already been said and there is no reason why the house should not divide on it and the will of the majority prevail. I appeal to the hon. gentlemen opposite to follow out the precepts that were laid down by their spokesman this morning.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would point out with due respect to the Secretary of State that we on this side of the house know something about private bills; that these divorce bills are not government bills. We know that the Prime Minister has made that abundantly clear upon every occasion upon which he has spoken upon divorce in this house. We on this side of the house have had the experience of moving private bills
Private Bill-Divorce
and we have had the experience of having to put up with the fate that happened to them because some member or two or a dozen on the government side of the house did not agree with our philosophy or perhaps with some particular issue which was the subject of our private bill.
This bill was last considered on Tuesday, and I gave the house due notice then-and I have heard nothing from the Secretary of State except what he has just said now in regard to it-that I was opposed to the passing of this bill; that I proposed to debate that question; that I proposed to show the reasons why I am opposed to the granting of this divorce. Thus it is that I am not likely to bother too much about the evidence which would support the view opposite to my own, and I shall be exceedingly proud-I said "proud", because I know the ability of the Secretary of State as a debater-if he will rise in his place and argue the other side of the case. Let me remind the Secretary of State that the only time-I should not say "the only time", because technically this bill has been before this house four times; but on one occasion at least it did receive some consideration owing to the fact that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam happened to notice the thing as it passed through the mill. It happened to be a big fat divorce bill-I think that was the term he used-so he thought he would read it. Even after that it passed all these stages. From then on I concluded that this bill should not pass. It was a perfect example of the way this house does not perform its duty in scrutinizing these measures.
Yes, we have this committee of the Senate, of course. It has proven not to be infallible. I said this: I am prepared to debate this bill and I am prepared to debate every bill where I think there is a reasonable chance of killing the bill, provided that there might be injustice involved. I do not say that about bills which are unopposed. I know that in these unopposed bills there is collusion and plenty of it; but where the home is broken up, if these people have agreed to live apart, if they are living apart, if there is no purpose to be served in joining together or trying to join together people who are incompatible, then I am not bothering too much about it. But where there is a woman-and there is a woman in this case-or a man to whom any injustice is done, I shall fight that case and I shall fight every case on the floor of this house, and I shall fight it in the miscellaneous private bills committee.
My hon. friend talks about passing this bill being the will of the majority. I tell him that if every man in this house were taken out behind the curtains and you asked him

Private Bill-Divorce to look you in the eye and say honestly and say from his heart whether he is in favour of the way in which this House of Commons, the Senate and this committee deal with these things, if he is an honest man he will look you in the face and say: I am sick and tired of this rotten thing; let us get it out of the forum of this House of Commons.


Mr. Hosking:: What about the petitioner? My hon. friend has told us of his attitude toward divorce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the woman?


George Hugh Castleden: And separation allowance?


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am talking about the petitioner.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know my hon. friend
believes in simply rubber stamping whatever the Senate has done. I do not believe in that.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You know better than that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend has illustrated a prejudiced type of mind in the discussion of this thing ever since this particular case came up, and I do not want to elaborate upon it, but I can if necessary. In the meantime, we have the hon. member's name recorded-I refer to the private members' bills-and in that connection he did vote "yea" that all these ten divorce bills be considered in that way without even reading the numbers and the names.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; that is absolutely untrue. I seconded the motion that they be dealt with individually. I do not want my hon. friend speaking for me in this house. If I want to make a speech in this house I will make my own speech.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I apologize unreservedly to the hon. gentleman. For a moment I was excited.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. As soon as I sit down the hon. member for Saskatoon may continue his remarks. We may regard the incident between himself and the hon. member for Wellington South concluded. In the debate on clause 1 of the bill which is before us there may be, the committee will agree, no practical advantage in the chairman at the moment becoming too particular as to adherence to the rules. The only thing is that every time the rules are not adhered to the occasion becomes a precedent for another, and I think it is my duty to point out to the hon. member for Saskatoon that the over-all procedure on divorce bills is not before the committee at the moment. He has unlimited rights to debate the merits or


demerits of clause 1 of this bill, and clause 1 is the bill. But we are less likely to have a repetition of the unfortunate incident that almost occurred if we stick to the matter before the committee instead of endeavouring at this late stage to debate a very debatable question, namely, the manner of handling divorce cases as a whole, which might have been in order on the second reading but which, my hon. friend will agree, is not before the committee at the moment.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Will you give me at least this much indulgence? Will you let me make my apologies to my hon. friend? Perhaps I was a trifle moved at the moment, and I made an error when I said that my hon. friend was one of those who asked that the bills be taken en masse on that particular occasion. I was totally and completely wrong. What I had meant to say was that he was recorded as being one of those who had voted in support of the preamble of this bill, which would have granted the divorce. Having said that, I cannot do anything else but again give him my humble apologies for having made that mistake. I hope I put myself in the clear in regard to the other matter at the same time.
This bill was considered a few days ago. It was considered on June 22, as will be found by referring to page 6482 of Hansard. In case any of my hon. friends wish to refer to that particular page, I want to warn them that there were a good many copies of yesterday's Hansard from which a number of pages were left out. When I went to refer to what I had said on the last day I could not find a part of my speech. The Hansard pages from 6467 to 6482 inclusive were missing in my copy. I then went to borrow the copy of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I found that the same thing had happened there. Finally, I did obtain a correct copy. I expect it happened to only one run of print. I found on page 6475 what the Secretary of State, who has interjected in this debate with an appeal of something or other, said on that occasion, and I shall try to answer him. He said:
Does this procedure have to be inflicted on the whole house?
I say yes, by the machinery which is set up for handling this matter, and I am most sorry to say that it does. The whole question, sir, is most distasteful to me and I must say that I am almost certainly not in character when I have to do this sort of thing.
Then I want to say a word in regard to the debate which took place in this house and I refer in particular to the hon. member

lor Charlevoix and his remarks as reported at page 6482 of Hansard where he is reported as having said:
After listening to all these complaints about these bills and listening to all this talk I am just wondering whether these hon. members who are complaining about these bills find their conscience bothered enough to rise and vote against the bills.
To that query, sir, and it is a legitimate one, my answer is yes. My conscience bothers me sufficiently so that I shall vote against this bill if the opportunity arises. I shall vote against any divorce bill in this house if in my own mind that decision is justified. What does one base one's decision upon? Well, he must base it, I suppose, on the evidence. I had hoped, sir, that there would be enough latitude given me to talk a little around this thing, but I have a very good copy of the evidence here if the house insists that I inflict it upon them, and I can quote from the evidence at some length. However, I am still hoping that will not be necessary, particularly in regard to the details and in regard to certain names.
I find that Bill No. 434 is of such a nature that I am compelled to vote against it. I find that according to the record of the miscellaneous private bills committee the preamble of this bill was opposed on a vote by six members of that committee. I propose to tell the committee who those six members were:	The hon. members for Regina City,
Lapointe, Macleod, Saskatoon, Mackenzie, and Burnaby-Coquitlam. I would like to say to the hon. member for Charlevoix, who is not here at the moment, and with whom I am not very well acquainted, that I imagine that with his background and training I expect he would be opposed to the whole idea of divorce in general upon moral and religious grounds, and I am going to suggest to him that if he go out behind the curtains and go up to the offices and gather in people of like mind and bring them into this house he could kill every divorce that came before this house at any time. I am not suggesting he should do that, but I am telling him he could do that if he so desires. Why does he not do that?
Why do they absent themselves from these votes? Where are they today? Where will they be when this divorce bill is voted upon, if it is voted upon today? I venture to say that there will be a smaller proportion in this house when the vote comes up than there was in the miscellaneous private bills committee of which I speak.
So, sir, on this matter of conscience let me turn the challenge back upon him. If it is a matter of conscience that he should oppose divorce bills then he should oppose them.
Private Bill-Divorce
If it is a matter of conscience for me to oppose this bill today then I am going to oppose it.
I do not expect my hon. friend has organized any group to come in here and kill this bill on conscientious grounds. If they are here I do not see them. As a matter of fact, sir, I do not see any hon. member on the government side of this house who is recorded as having done anything but vote for this particular divorce bill and so I propose to read to you the names of those who supported the preamble in the committee and by so doing recorded themselves as being in favour of this particular divorce.
The vote on the preamble is recorded and this is the vote on which I was unfortunate enough to blame my hon. friend. Those who voted for it were as follows: The hon. members for Timmins, Victoria-and I hope I have got them right for I do not want someone else jumping on my back-Wellington South, Parkdale, Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, Cumberland, the junior member for Queens, and Papineau. It is interesting to note that the latter was the gentleman who went on that committee instead of the hon. member for Laurier who had resigned and that the substitute also voted for that divorce. Then I have the hon. members for Lisgar, Manitoba; Middlesex East; and Selkirk. That is the record, and now the committee has the names of those who voted for and against this particular divorce from both sides of the house.
Just in case you think that was a small committee I want to point out, perhaps in justice to those concerned, that three members abstained from voting. They were the hon. members for High Park, Niagara Falls, and Wetaskiwin. That is the total number of the committee and this will show just how interested those men are in their work, and do not think I am blaming them for not being interested. There are 50 on that committee and the number present when that vote was taken was 20, three of whom abstained.
That is something of the history of this particular bill. I am still avoiding the evidence but I will come to it because I am going to try to show this house that this woman had a case equally as good perhaps against her husband. It happens in many cases that the men have the advantage in this thing, and I think that is probably chiefly true in the two provinces concerned, for there the man is the money earner and in many cases the keeper of the purse. The man probably has more know-how in legal matters and it is pretty hard for a woman

Private Bill-Divorce
in certain circumstances to set out with $1,500 in cash to start with, then the counsel's fees, and then find the money to pay these Peeping Tom investigators while they are engaged in their business, if we can call it business. The man can initiate that sort of thing and he sometimes gets away with it.
Now I want to say another word about this bill which originated, as so many of these bills do, in the province of Quebec. Some of them originated in the province of Newfoundland and I need not go into the history of why we get divorce cases from these two provinces. But I want to say that I deplore, whether in these two provinces, my own province, or any other province, the increase in the number of divorce cases, for it is a lamentable and pitiable thing, and the effect is that at this session of parliament we have had probably the greatest number of divorce cases, though the margin is small, than have ever been presented before at any one session of the Canadian House of Commons, certainly as far back as I think 1943 or 1947, and on a ten-year basis. I think it is on a ten-year basis. If any one of my hon. friends would like to get a record of that, I would commend them to the Senate committee report on divorce. It is No. 55. It is the minutes of proceedings of the Senate committee of Canada. It was issued on May 12, 1954. It will show them statistics there on divorce generally which I think they will find interesting to read.
I may say that this bill is one of 382 bills which were initiated from the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland in this session. I see that the number from Newfoundland was 9, so it will not be hard for you to do the necessary mathematics and discover how many were initiated in the province of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. How does the hon. gentleman relate the statistics to this particular bill which you ruled was the only thing which could be discussed?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This bill, as I was saying when I was interrupted, originated in the province of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We have come-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The Secretary of State has raised a point of order which, if I may say so, is at least very nearly correct.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fairly good for him.


An hon. Member:: Close enough.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think that with some co-operation from the hon. member who now has the floor we might keep this discussion away from the method of the handling of divorces as a whole, which is an extremely large subject. I do not think that I can rule the hon. member for Saskatoon out of order in relating this particular incident to one of a series of incidents and perhaps proving that they are on the increase or on the decrease. At the moment I feel that the hon. member for Saskatoon is not too far out of order for it to be necessary for the chair to interrupt.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I want to say that I think I was in order because I was discussing this bill. As a matter of fact, I was saying "this bill" when the hon. member interrupted me. I was just talking about this bill. I was saying that this bill originated from the province of Quebec where these matters are not dealt with in the same fashion as they are dealt with in other provinces. Our committee-and I am talking about the miscellaneous private bills committee which considered this bill-consisted of men, the great majority of whom were not from the province of Quebec or from the province of Newfoundland. I am submitting that it is quite a great responsibility for us, who have different arrangements with regard to divorce in our provinces, to take total responsibility or almost total responsibility for having to deal with cases which come from other provinces. I definitely feel that this case and cases like it should be more in the hands of the people of the provinces in which they originate than in those of people who come from provinces which have other arrangements with regard to these matters.
I am not suggesting for one moment that anybody wants to force anything upon the province of Quebec. It is the right of Quebec, as it is the right of Newfoundland, to handle their own marriage problems in their own way. This case is one out of a number of cases which, as I say, are on the increase and which are going to take up an increasing amount of the time of the House of Commons.
So much, sir, for that part of it. As to the history of the bill before us, I went over that matter previously when I spoke the other day. Let us get it straight, though, so that it may be all together. It passed the Senate committee. It passed and the divorce was granted. It passed first reading in the House of Commons. No voices were raised against it. It passed second reading without consideration. Then it came back to the committee of the whole. Then, as I said, somebody read it quite by accident and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

6743 moved that it be referred back to the miscellaneous private bills committee for further consideration there and by the house. My hon. friend talks about majorities. He says "Why must the majority be thwarted by one man?". I do not know whether he was honouring me with the title or to whom he referred, but that is what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was quoting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: He is a much greater man than I.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I thank you, sir, for the compliment that you have paid to my hon. friend. 1 am pointing this out to the Secretary of State, when he talks about the will of the majority. I would suggest that the members of this house gave an honest vote in that case-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give us a chance.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There is no reason to suggest that they did not do so on the previous occasion. There is nothing to suggest that they did not read the evidence. There is everything to suggest that they had made up their minds and decided "This thing needs another scrutiny", and therefore sent it back to the miscellaneous private bills committee for that purpose.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We looked at it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We are going to get into the detail of this bill, maybe before my time is up, I do not know. My hon. friend reminds me that the majority was 66 to 63. After all, that is a majority. I have seen the government sustained by about that number.
In this particular bill the man was suing the woman. At this point I was going to make the remarks that I have just made with regard to the man in many of these cases having a tremendous advantage over the woman, having regard to the matter of funds. He is the keeper of the funds. There are fees paid on account of this bill and the others that were presented to this house of $80,226 at this session. That may be a startling figure but it is one which may be obtained from that pamphlet from the Senate which I have just quoted.
I now want to come to the evidence before the committee. That is the part that I would have liked to avoid, but it is difficult in my present predicament to talk about generalities if I am not allowed to do so. Let me say this. When this bill and others was before the Senate we were told, "These gentlemen in the other place see the witnesses, they see the look in their eyes, they
Private Bill-Divorce
see the kind of people they are, they see them in person and they have that advantage." I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I heard the evidence in this particular case, that I saw the witnesses, and that I heard two witnesses who did not appear before the committee of the other place because for some reason or other they were not called. I heard counsel on both sides make their arguments. I came to certain conclusions and I am going to have a word or two to say about those conclusions.
By the way, I suppose it would not be polite, Mr. Chairman, if I talked to you in French, but if you will permit me to do so, I should like to quote something from a little paper here; I would call it a rag. I do not think I would pay too much attention to it ordinarily. The reason I am paying attention to it now and the reason I quote it here is that it was the subject of a question in our committee and it therefore comes into the position of being in order. I found a little thing in it when I was looking it over today. I found another passage which, with your permission, I shall read directly. The reason I am doing this is to defend the Liberal government and my Liberal friends from what I think is a deliberate slander. My hon friends will be pleased if I do that.
(Translation):
The Ottawa Liberals are quite annoyed with the provinces ol Quebec and Newfoundland for not wanting to set up their own divorce courts like the other provinces. In fact, in these two provinces, divorce is still the responsibility of the federal government.
(Text):
That, as the Prime Minister has often told us, is completely untrue.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What paper is the hon. member quoting from?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I quote from what I consider to be a rag. It is called Id Montreal.


Pierre Gauthier: Who is the editor?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have not the faintest idea.


An hon. Member:: Your brother.


Pierre Gauthier: Who said that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am merely submitting it because it is exhibit "A" in the evidence that was brought out before the committee. That particular passage which I have read I think is completely wrong.


Pierre Gauthier: The hon. member had better withdraw that remark.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is completely wrong. I am defending the government. The statement that divorces from the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland are under the jurisdiction

Private Bill-Divorce
of the federal government is incorrect. The Prime Minister has explained many times that any person in either of these provinces who desires a divorce comes to the foot of the throne and has a special bill passed. That is why these are private bills and not public bills. I wanted to make that perfectly clear. Nobody wants this to be a provincial matter if a province does not like it. I do not know anybody-Liberals, Conservatives or people of any other political or religious faith-who insists that these provinces should set up courts of their own.


Pierre Gauthier: I should like to know the name of the editor of this newspaper.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am sorry, but I am not
responsible for the editor's name.


Pierre Gauthier: I should like to know the name. He must have a name.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I will give my hon. friend the paper when I have finished and he can find out. Now, I come to my real reason for raising this particular matter. I suppose it is perfectly legitimate for me in dealing with a law case, as it is for my learned friends, to dispute the credibility of the witnesses. I have this little item, and once more it is from Ici Montreal. The only reason I wish to refer to it is that the petitioner was asked whether the statement in this paper, correct or not as it may be, was true, and he said that it was true. I propose to read it. It is also in French, and reads as follows:
William Delorme a comparu, le 21 avril dernier, sous une accusation d'avoir attente a la pudeur d'une denommee...
-and my friends will excuse me if I leave the girl's name out.
II devra subir son enquete preliminaire et demeu-rera entre temps en liberty sous caution de $950, que son pere a fournie en donnant comme garantie de la presence de l'accuse, sa propriety cvaluee a $10,000.
I see the chairman looking at me in some doubt. He is wondering whether I am on the course. I shall translate the article. It says:
William Delorme appeared on the 21st of April last under an accusation of attempted rape against . . . He will have to submit to his preliminary inquiry and will in the meantime be at liberty under bail of $950 which his father furnished for him. His guarantee for the presence of the accused is his own private property valued at $10,000.
That is the gentleman who is suing his wife for a divorce.


Mr. Heinke:: On a point of order, my hon. friend forgets to mention that this charge was later withdrawn-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If my hon. friend will permit me to make my speech-


Russell Earl Reinke: -and replaced with a charge of common assault.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not withdrawing these remarks by any manner of means. Counsel asked the petitioner: "Is that charge true?" He said, "Yes, it is true." Then he modified his statement. I only have his word for it, but he did modify his statement and said that the type of charge had been changed. I am not sure, because these committee meetings are not recorded, but I think he also said that the amount of bail had been reduced. I am merely, Mr. Chairman, trying to shake the credibility of the witness in your mind. I think that is a legitimate thing to do.
I want to come now to the main charge of this man that his wife had committed adultery. He tells us that nineteen years ago was the first time he knew of the adultery of his wife. He had come home at an unexpected time and had found his wife occupying sleeping quarters with another man. He said that he had found that also upon another occasion. So his counsel said: "What did you do?" He said, "I went out and cried." They asked him, "Did you wake them up?" He said, "I did not." On another occasion he said, "I went off to the hockey game and I cried." For nineteen years that man said he knew that she had been living in adultery with another man. When he found out about it he went out and cried, but he lived and cohabited with her for the next nineteen years, although he had said in his petition that he had by no means condoned the adultery of which she was accused.
I ask you: Why did he only now bring this petition of divorce against his wife? Well, the home was broken up. Why did he not bring suit immediately he discovered these things? Oh, he said, on account of the children. But nineteen years later when his wife, whom he had deserted in the meantime, brought a case in the Quebec courts for a separation which the petitioner allowed to go by default, and when my friend'-I must not call him that-when the petitioner discovered he had to pay $20 a week and was liable to have to do so for the rest of his life, he suddenly decided that this wife of his was a bad woman and that somehow or other he would have to get rid of her. I should like to refer to a certain part of the evidence contained in the 383rd report of the Senate committee, but I am not sure whether I can find it. Oh yes, here it is on

page 12. The petitioner was being questioned by Mr. Lefrancois, his counsel. This is the
passage:
Q. Now, did you decide to do something about it?
A. Well, it is then that I decided to do something.
By the Acting Chairman:
Q. When?
A. After she started legal proceedings against me. It was then I decided to do something.
Let us examine this question of the children for whom he showed such consideration, the little children who of course could not be disgraced by the stigma that would be attached to them. Who are these children' There are two boys. One is now eighteen and is unmarried and the other is twenty. They were before the committee. They were on the witness stand. The petitioner was asked where his children lived. He did not know where either of them lived. He was asked about his friendship with his children, and he said
that the last time he saw one of them_________I
have forgotten which one-he called him a name in French so dirty that he could not bear to translate it into English in this committee.
Then they asked these children what they thought of their father. They said they had been beaten, kicked and abused by him and that they had to leave home. That is the man who could not sue this woman for a divorce on the ground of adultery to which he swore because the children's name had to be protected. What a farce! On the stand that woman said that she knew her husband had been unfaithful to her. This is one instance where the case might just as well have been reversed with equal justice. It so happened that it was the petitioner who sued her and not she him.
I could go on. I have a lot of other evidence.
I saw the whole proceeding. On the one side there was the mother with her family. On the other side were the professional investigators, the principal one of whom admitted that he had received a small bonus of $20 oyer and above his fee for having come home with the bacon. I ask you: Are you going to believe that woman's son, that fine young boy in Her Majesty's air force uniform? Counsel tried to attack his character in committee and I refused to permit that. On the one side was this soldier lad, a fine, clean, good boy of twenty years of age, standing there to protect his mother, and on the other side these professional people. You should see them. There was the one fellow, slick, smooth, poised, with his story off by heart, and then he had as helper that poor creature, that unfortunate anaemic looking fellow with the weak chin. Hon. members who were on the committee will remember him. He did 83276-4264
Private Bill-Divorce
not know whether he was going to get any money at all out of this thing. He was a peeping Tom". He did it in his spare time. I do not know whether or not he did it for fun, but he was an electrician. He loved to do this after dark. He did not know whether he would get $5 or $10, but his boss had already obtained $310.
Finally, let us refer to the evidence itself. How was it obtained? It was obtained on the top of a ladder in the dark of night with a little flashlight shining in a window. Three men climbed the ladder at once, which looked a little foolish to me; but here they are with a little flashlight shining away to the far end of the room. The bed was on the far side away from the window. There were two people in bed. The woman was on the other side, and they admitted in their evidence that these people were almost completely covered. He said he did see part of the man's forehead and identified him that way.
There they were on the ladder. Well, they got off the ladder and they got off it in a hurry. Why did they get off it in a hurry? Because they heard the provincial police were coming. And why were they afraid of the provincial police if they were doing no wrong? How did this fellow make this identification? Because the week before he had gone to this woman and had lied to her.
I asked him about that, and he said it was not really lying. He told her he was sent by the electric company to check up on these fuses. He went in to talk to the woman and he admitted to me he lied to her.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to have to interrupt the eloquent and hon. gentleman but he has now taken two minutes over his time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If you would just give me two minutes more, I could finish.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. gentleman permission to speak for a further two minutes?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I take part in this debate for one reason. I could not agree more with everything the hon. member has said, every single thing he has described, except where he said that I voted in favour of all these divorces being considered at one time. I do want to say this, that he pointed out some very interesting figures when he said that the four people who voted against this divorce in committee were C.C.F. members. We all know that the aim of the C.C.F. party

Private Bill-Divorce
is to discredit and get rid of the Senate and they are using these divorce cases as an excuse.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Henry Alfred Hosking: This is continually referred to as a very improper way of handling divorces, so in order to discredit the Senate, they refer to these divorce cases one after the other-


Mr. Regier:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman:	I was one of the four C.C.F.
members to whom the speaker has just referred, and I think it ill behooves him to impute ulterior motives to me. I can say I voted in the cause of human justice, irrespective of how any other hon. member in the committee voted.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is undoubtedly correct. I was listening carefully to the hon. member who has the floor, and I did not interpret the remarks as imputing motives, but I would suggest that I have already stated this afternoon that an over-all discussion of Senate divorce procedure, and so forth, is out of order. Perhaps the hon. member who just took his seat has exceeded the letter of the ruling I have been endeavouring to make, but I trust the hon. member who now has the floor will not exceed it to any great extent.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I shall explain what I was proceeding to do, had I not been interrupted. The hon. member stopped me from making the explanation quite clear. We came here to judge these divorce cases on their merits, purely and simply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Henry Alfred Hosking: The hon. member who preceded me gave most damning evidence as to why divorce should be granted. He explained all the reasons why it should be granted, but the reason that they are now debating it, as he said in his speech of last Tuesday, is to prevent these divorces at every opportunity. In other words, by his actions, and by the actions of his supporters in that party, he is going to prevent the divorce being completed in this house purely and simply to discredit the Senate.
The Depuiy Chairman: I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. member for Wellington South to withdraw unconditionally that remark. The suggestion that any hon. member in this house or any group of hon. members have been guided in casting their vote by an entirely different question, is one which cannot be allowed to remain.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am quite prepared to withdraw, Mr. Chairman. Then, I should like to say this. We all know the evidence in these divorce cases is heard by a committee of the Senate. I am prepared to say that the lawyers who have the unpleasant task of examining the evidence in those cases would be accepted in any county across this dominion as judges. They have sat on these cases, listened to the evidence in all its detail, and have come to their conclusion. Subsequent to that the committee has sat and all the members listened to the evidence. When they have heard enough evidence they have decided to cast their votes one way or the other.
In this particular case there were 11 in favour of saying that this was no longer a marriage, and there were six against, four of whom were C.C.F. members. At all times this C.C.F. group take a stand that they hope will make the House of Commons do something with regard to the method of handling divorces. My plea in this case is this. I agree with the evidence that this man found his wife sleeping with another man. This man's wife left him and went to live in another house with a man who happened to be a cousin, a Mr. Delorme, a man with the same name. This man immediately creeps in and lives in the same house with Delorme's wife. Then there are the two children in the family who address this boarder living in the house with the mother as "uncle"; that is the connection between the family.


Mr. Winch:: He was an uncle.


Henry Alfred Hosking: He was a cousin, and by marriage he was an uncle. There was no blood relationship, and he had no right to expect to take up any other position. The family clearly referred to the boarder with whom the mother was living as "uncle". Someone said, "Is this not your cousin, your father's cousin?" They said, "Well, we call him uncle". I have no disagreement at all with the evidence that has been presented. Remember this, and I say it sincerely, I have no more grief for the husband than I have for the wife. They were both the same. There was no proper marriage in this home, and for those reasons we gave a divorce. For those reasons the divorce committee set up by the Senate found that the evidence was sufficient and recommended a private bill be put through this house to dissolve the marriage.
Our committee met and heard the evidence. Twenty members of that committee decided to dissolve the marriage and only four members of the C.C.F., whose actions throughout all these divorces have been to

delay and discredit the method of protecting the minorities in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, voted against it. They have always said we will make this minority agree with the majority. They will have to do it by talking this bill out, and they will subjugate the minority to their wishes. And after two fair hearings, both in the Senate committee and in our committee, if anyone talks this bill out, then he is discrediting the House of Commons in the eyes of the people of the Dominion of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: You are doing a fair job of it right now.


Henry Alfred Hosking: And that is the only part I shall take in this debate. I have no desire to see divorce take place anywhere. I would like to see a country in which there were no divorces. I have the benefit of having the best wife in the whole country, and I consider her my greatest asset. I disagree heartily with divorce. But when we have a Senate committee examining evidence and agreeing that there should be a divorce, and in addition to that when we have a committee of the House of Commons also agreeing that there should be a divorce, then I think it is a shameful thing for a very small party in the parliament of Canada to stand up and say, "I will talk this bill out. I will not allow it to pass. I will flout all the ethics of parliament."
That is a performance, Mr. Chairman, that is oppressive to a minority of people in two provinces of this country, who will think they are being oppressed. And I think further, it is flouting the will of parliament that has set up a divorce committee to hear the evidence in these divorce cases.
I would point out again that the head of the divorce committee in the Senate is a man who is well qualified for his work and who would be acceptable on any bench in the Dominion of Canada. And if there are mistakes-and I am not suggesting there are human beings who do not make mistakes-if there are mistakes made in the divorce committee, I am convinced they are no more glaring and no more frequent, indeed, possibly less frequent, than the mistakes made in the courts of this country.
I would plead with the house-and I am going to take my seat now-not to talk this out. But if hon. members do talk it out, then that is their problem. But in the opinion of hon. members who have taken part in this discussion on divorce, it would be a discredit to the House of Commons and its procedure if a few men, by making a farce of that procedure, can flout the wishes of so many other people.
Private Bill-Divorce


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he think it would be fair to this woman, who does not want this divorce, who would suffer the loss of money and suffer reproach to her name, if this House of Commons should pass this divorce against her will?


Henry Alfred Hosking: I will answer that. If this woman had not left her husband, and had not gone to live in a house, and have this other person who had been following her for sixteen years move into that house and live there, and if her family had not referred to him affectionately as "uncle" and when asked again they said "uncle, no not cousin", I would have taken a different attitude.
I would think since she has done that she has flouted all the rights to alimony. Why should a man pay her to live with another man? That does not seem reasonable to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege-and again I shall be brief. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon misrepresented what I said, although I am sure he did not intend to do so. I believe he misunderstood what I said at the beginning of the debate. I took no position on this bill. I merely asked to be allowed to take a position on it by my vote. And I hope that, now that the hon. member for Saskatoon has had his say, he will let the great majority of us in the House of Commons who do not say very much at least have the right to vote on this bill.


George Hugh Castleden: It has been interesting to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington South. Oddly enough he is taking exception to our action in this case because he thinks we are doing an injustice. On the other hand we are taking this action because we think there is a great possibility of an injustice in which we do not want to have any part. I am sure the possibility of injustice is just as abhorrent to other members in the committee as it is to him. Therefore we should be more careful when a responsibility of this kind is placed upon us when there is a possibility of someone accusing us of being guilty of an injustice.
Then, we have another duty and responsibility to Canada's parliament and our parliamentary institutions. After reading the evidence of the witnesses on both sides in this case I certainly came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient proof on either side to make a decision in the matter. The evidence was conflicting; it was poor evidence, and there is grave doubt in my mind that justice would be served by the passing of this bill.
6748	HOUSE OF
Private Bill-Divorce
If both houses of parliament err in this matter, then the prestige of parliament suffers. Our responsibility in this field is too great to permit that to happen. We certainly cannot treat the matter lightly. Parliament makes laws; that is our duty. Parliament appoints judges. The cabinet and the government control our courts. One of the greatest functions of parliament is to maintain that justice that is one of the foundations upon which democracy is built. The prestige of parliament is fundamental to that.
I would ask hon. members to contemplate the results of any demonstration that parliament is unable to administer justice within its own halls. If within the borders of parliament we do not administer justice, and if we make errors-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Would you remarry them and make them live together again?


George Hugh Castleden: I am not judging the case. I am just talking about whether we in Canada dare to be guilty of an injustice.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You are doing an injustice.


George Hugh Castleden: You can be the judge of that.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am.


George Hugh Castleden: Any move which might result in an injustice being perpetrated is not just a reflection upon members of the House of Commons, but it lowers the standard of the prestige of parliament in the eyes of all the people of Canada.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You are doing that yourself.


George Hugh Castleden: It is not the function of parliament to judge. The courts are established to decide right and wrong, and we ask that the functions of the courts be carried out. We have no quarrel with the other place; we realize they have a difficult task to perform. We would like to see them rid of it, and I am sure they would like to be rid of it themselves.


Henry Alfred Hosking: That is why you are preventing this divorce from going through.


George Hugh Castleden: No.


William Alfred Robinson: It being six o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

William Alfred Robinson: We were considering
item 44.


George Clyde Nowlan: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock.
John Hornby Harrison: When the committee rose at five o'clock to consider private bills I was making a few remarks on the Saskatchewan dam. I said at that time there was a considerable area of agreement between the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and myself regarding his statement that the dam was approved of by all members in Saskatchewan. Later in his remarks, when describing the conditions in the 1930's when we had the dried-out period in the west, he said that when he drove down a street in Moose Jaw he was unable to see the engine of his car. Hon. members may have thought he had had a slip of the tongue, but what he was actually describing was the dust condition. We are not able to see the engines of our cars today, but there are hoods over them and they are largely ornamented with chrome. But in those days he was likely in the same condition as most residents of Saskatchewan. If they owned an automobile at that time the hood had long since blown away or had been used to repair the barn or to put a roof on some utilitarian building in the backyard.
That was the condition that existed at that time. What the hon. member was describing was that the dust conditions were so bad that as he drove down the street no doubt he had no hood on his car and he could not see the motor, not because there was a hood there but because of the dust. These were desperate days, and we do not want to see a recurrence. That is something we have no control over. Conservation of water is something over which we have some control. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre when he says that all members from Saskatchewan are favourable to this dam. In this respect I am different from most members from Saskatchewan in that in my own constituency we have lots of water. As a matter of fact, in the Meadow Lake area we could fill this dam perhaps 150 times or 200 times over without any difficulty. We do realize that when other parts of the country are prosperous it makes a lot of difference to us as well.

I am in agreement with the hon. member tor Saskatoon who said that when this project is shown to be something that will benefit the nation as a whole it should be gone ahead with. This is about all I have to say at this time. I just want to indicate that I too am in agreement with the construction of the dam. When it is a national project, when we know that it is something that will benefit the nation as a whole, we should go ahead with it.


Mr. Mang:: If or when this project is undertaken some of its store of water will be passing through the river Qu'Appelle, which is the northern boundary of the constituency I represent. Therefore, I hope the committee will forgive me for taxing its patience for about two minutes at this time. There are only two points I want to emphasize because I think the matter has been very thoroughly covered, particularly by the hon. member for Rosthern this afternoon. 1 endorse wholeheartedly the appeal he made to people from all parts of Canada and to members from all parts of Canada who represent constituencies in this house. To my mind the final decision to build this project will be made when members from other parts of Canada decide that it is in the national interest so to do.
The area in question has been under discussion for a long time. In fact we read of discussions having taken place or interest shown in the area where this dam would be constructed as far back as 150 years ago. In 1804, John McDonald of Garth, who represented the North West Company in western Canada, gathered a great deal of Indian legend concerning this area where at certain times at high flood the river would reverse its course. That is the area at the bend of the South Saskatchewan, and not so many miles from there are the headwaters of the Qu'Appelle river. So much interest was created at that time by those reports that various expeditions were organized to investigate the possibilities.
In fact waterways in western Canada is a subject that has been discussed internationally as far back as 1822 when there was a meeting between representatives of the United States and of Canada to discuss the feasibility of developing a waterway which would connect the great lakes and the Red river valley. Nothing much came of that, but there was a certain amount of interest and in July, 1859 a steamship by the name of "Anson" arrived at Fort Garry. Interest was again aroused and the Canadian government sent an expedition from eastern Canada headed by Henry Hind, professor of
Supply-Agriculture
geology of Trinity College, Toronto, called the Assiniboine and Saskatchewan exploring expedition. Hind had the vision of creating a waterway which would make it possible to travel by water from Fort Garry, now Winnipeg, right through along the Assiniboine, the Qu'Appelle, the Saskatchewan and the Bow river to the foothills of the Rockies. It is worth while mentioning the interest evidenced by the British government in this area when they sent out Captain Palliser in 1858.
I mention these few skimpy historical facts for this purpose and this purpose alone, namely, to show that the waterways of the western plains had been considered of national and also international interest long before 1954. I believe the interest was first aroused by the old Indian legends conveyed to the white people about 1804 when John McDonald made his explorations for the North West Company while trading with the Indians. I set forth these few historical facts because I believe that when the government and parliament makes its decision it could be helpful to be fully aware of the historical background of the project.
I am not going to cover the points raised by other hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Rosthern, but I want to stress another more practical point in particular. If this dam is constructed in the area I have mentioned it will constitute the main source of water supply for a large percentage of the people of Saskatchewan. The people in the city of Regina, some 75,000 in number, and the people in the city of Moose Jaw, the third largest city in Saskatchewan, will be assisted in obtaining a better water supply if the dam is built. Let me point out, in addition, that at the present time, as most hon. members know, there is a project by which water is going to be led from Buffalo Pound lake through to the city of Regina by pipe line. Buffalo Pound lake is the headwaters of the Qu'Appelle river.
It is desirable in all our water supplies to have the water pure, tasty, and as high a quality as possible. If we have a diversion of the South Saskatchewan by virtue of such a project as the South Saskatchewan dam then the water will be flowing through Buffalo Pound lake until it finally finds its way into the Qu'Appelle river and then on down to Manitoba. In order to keep the water as pure as possible it is desirable to have a steady flow from the headwaters, but in this case the headwaters are not of sufficient flow to provide the required degree of freshness in that water and it would have to be treated. I am not saying it is not pure at the present time because Moose Jaw

Supply-Agriculture
is using this water. It would be desirable to have a larger volume of water available so that the quality would be considerably improved. This project when completed will accomplish this.
Let me remind members of the committee that this will be a very large structure. If the people of Canada decide to undertake this project then we will be creating a lake about two-thirds the length of lake Erie. I do not think many people allow their imagination to dwell on the fact that in the heart of one of the finest agricultural areas of this country we will be providing a lake of such magnitude. Apart from irrigation and power requirements more than 100,000 people in the heart of Saskatchewan are depending on this project for better and purer drinking water. I would like to add my voice to that of those who have already spoken on this subject and I would like to urge all members of the house to consider both the background, the necessity, and the economic value to the Canadian people as a whole and particularly in the area, of this project. It will help the people of Saskatchewan to a better life personally and in making a living. It will increase the natural growth, strength, and the virility of the Dominion of Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the parliamentary assistant answer my question?


Robert McCubbin: I believe the hon. member's question had to do with the increase in postage expenditure. In former years letters sent out from our department were sent out free of charge, but now they are sent out on a charge basis and the post office charges us for all such letters and the cost to the department is naturally increased in the process. That is why there is an item there Which was not there in former years.


John Alpheus Charlton: But in some cases there is less postage this year than last year for certain items and it would not appear to be due to an increase in the postage rate. Some items are less but others have been practically doubled and there does not seem to be any logical answer. I would like to have the variation explained.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could say a word on this because the hon. member asked me exactly the same question on my estimates. There has been a change in policy with regard to postage and postal meters were installed and there is an item for each department to cover the cost of this postage. There may be some departments that previously had special delivery or air mail and that would have been charged to the department and perhaps account for the

discrepancy between last year and this. But there has been a change in policy, as I believe the leader of the house pointed out when my estimates were up and on these items there are increases in nearly every department.


John Alpheus Charlton: But on page 117 of the details there is an item which was $4,500 last year and which is reduced to $3,500 this year.


Robert McCubbin: In which department?


John Alpheus Charlton: It is under item 45 and I understand we are dealing with items 44 and 45 simultaneously. The explanation advanced by the Secretary of State may be perfectly all right but I do not think it explains a decrease of $1,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I understand that this covers branches of the department outside Ottawa and there had to be an item covering that in previous years. It is at the headquarters in Ottawa that the policy change to which I have referred has been introduced. This other item is in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps they have been sending less mail.


John Alpheus Charlton: But that explanation does not cover the fact that it is less in some items and more in others.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the parliamentary assistant reply to my query?


Robert McCubbin: I understand that was with respect to the survey made of the Assiniboine river. That survey was undertaken along with the Red river survey at a time' when they had flood trouble in the Red river valley a few years ago. These few projects were undertaken together but what is going to take place with respect to the survey in which my hon. friend is interested, I am not in a position to say. The other matter the hon. member mentioned had to do with flooding at Brandon, but that is entirely a provincial and municipal problem and of course if they cannot handle that then it is up to the provincial government to appeal to us for assistance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the whole Red river valley problem is under review and constant attention because it is all part of the same difficulty. The flooding extends over the whole Assiniboine basin. It involves about 200,000 acres of land, I think, and about 700,000 population. As I indicated in my remarks, surveys have taken place from time to time ever since 1886 but

the recent surveys during and since the disastrous flood of 1950 suggest that more urgent action is going to be taken.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant to the minister could tell us why it is necessary to have 29 extra people working under this department this year. He might also explain this minor item, probably, of $91,000 for "purchase of bulls for pastures". It happens to be just the same figure as it was last year. I do not know whether they buy so many bulls each year. But it is extremely good figuring if they go out and buy a number of bulls and have them work out at the same figure for each year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last year it was horses.


Robert McCubbin: Of course, that was just an estimate. It might be $70,000 this year and it might be $100,000. It is somewhere in that neighbourhood. It will not likely run over $91,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is that the complete explanation? The item reads "purchase of bulls for pastures". Where are the pastures? What kind of bulls are they? Why is it necessary to have so many? Do not people supply any of their own bulls out there any more?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Liberal party supplies all the bull out there.


Robert McCubbin: I do not wish to go into a lengthy discussion about this matter but the situation will be understood by anyone who has been out in western Canada and has seen these fine community pastures which were set up in the days of drought, where the farmers come and put their cattle in. The government tries to buy the best bulls they can buy and then they turn them into these pastures in order to assist the farmers. There are 62 community pastures throughout these provinces. A great many bulls are put in them.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is very nice to have the government supply the bulls for these pastures, but after all it is a matter of $91,000. We have always paid for our own bulls down east.


Mr. Weir:: You sold a lot of them out west.


John Alpheus Charlton: If we can sell them to the government and get that price for them, I think it is a good idea.


Robert McCubbin: Of course, you must remember that the farmers of western Canada contribute to this service themselves. What I 83276-427
Supply-Agriculture
mean is that we may have to make up a little bit some years but they pay 75 cents a head per month to put their cattle in these pastures. It does not all come out of the government because the farmers contribute to it themselves.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the charge, 75 cents per month?


Robert McCubbin: Seventy-five cents per head per month.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is still a very reasonable charge for pasture, with bull service too.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to say how
much the farmers of the west appreciate the service of the community pastures. In the item this year I notice a sum of $462,000 for the construction of community and $642,000 for operation, improvement and maintenance of community pastures. Where are the new pastures to be constructed? Can the parliamentary assistant give us the location of these? Can he tell us approximately how many pastures are involved with regard to construction? What is the cost per pasture?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, there has been increased acreage in some of the pastures in the north and eastern part of Saskatchewan. That is why the sum of money has been set aside, so that these pastures might be enlarged and increased, refenced and looked after.


George Hugh Castleden: No new pastures as such are being constructed?


Robert McCubbin: No. I think there are 62 of them.


George Hugh Castleden: How about the other item of $642,000 for operation, improvement and maintenance of community pastures.


Robert McCubbin: What item are you on?


George Hugh Castleden: It is page 115 of your estimates.


Robert McCubbin: I know; but what item are you on?


George Hugh Castleden: I stood up when you were on item 44.


An hon. Member:: It was passed.


John Alpheus Charlton: No; it was not.


George Hugh Castleden: It is under item 44. There are two items on page 115 in the estimates under item 44, which runs from page 113 to 115.


Robert McCubbin: I certainly have the information all here. My hon. friend will know where these places are better than I do. I have all the information here as to where

Supply-Agriculture
the money has been spent; in the Wilner pasture, the Royal pasture, the Antelope park pasture, the Mantario pasture. Also there is the construction of a new pasture in Manitoba.


George Hugh Castleden: That is fine.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Gilbert Weir: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that he had a pasture there for antelope?


Robert McCubbin: No. That is for livestock and cattle. The name is Antelope park.


George Hugh Castleden: These are not new ones?


Robert McCubbin: No. These are ones that are being enlarged and completed.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Alpheus Charlton: No. I asked the parliamentary assistant a moment ago about the extra 29 help in the one item. I notice here that there are 83 extra in the next item. That is item No. 45. I wonder whether he could give us some explanation as to why that extra help is necessary. I see there are extra maintenance supervisors here at a salary running from $3,160 to $3,720. There is one extra agricultural supervisor. I wonder whether that is the one we saw so much about in the papers a few months ago?


William Gilbert Weir: Which item is my hon. friend referring to?


John Alpheus Charlton: Items 44 and 45. They are being taken simultaneously. It is page 116 in the details.


Robert McCubbin: In reply to the question that aas just been asked me I would say that a good deal of extra new help had to be procured and hired for the Bow river project where there has been a good deal of settlement taken from below Swift Current and moved over into that area.


John Alpheus Charlton: This is the Bow river irrigation project, is it?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, in Alberta.


John Alpheus Charlton: And the extra amount is needed for that project?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, to enlarge it and develop it so that it will be in shape for these settlers to move there.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to commend the Department of Agriculture for the enlargement and development of these green pastures. It is extremely difficult for people who live in Ontario or in an area where rainfall is abundant to appreciate the circumstances under which men attempt to raise livestock in the Palliser triangle. It is an area in which it is extremely difficult to live
tMr. McCubbin.]
and raise livestock because while some years there may be a considerable amount of rain in other years there will be no rain. If there is not a community pasture with plenty of water and with care taken concerning the forage on that pasture, then the raising of cattle is rendered almost impossible in that area. I say this just to help people who come from places where there is more water from the sky to understand what all this is about. The department is very wise in pursuing a policy of expanding these pastimes as it is now doing and has done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
47. Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $143,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the vote for land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia. Of course it would be desirable to have the P.F.R.A. extended to the province in which case there would not have to be a separate vote for this item. I am interested in one particular project which would have to be covered under a vote such as this as things stand now. I refer to the request that has been put forward by the province on behalf of the trustees of the B.C. fruit lands irrigation district for rehabilitation of their irrigation scheme near Kamloops. I understand the matter has been submitted by the province to the government here, under the arrangement which was outlined by the Minister of Agriculture back in 1947, with a request that the federal government, if it approves the project, participate in the cost. In turn the matter has been submitted by Ottawa to the P.F.R.A. head office in Regina for study. The minister was kind enough to assure me when out there a week or so ago that he would try to expedite that study. I have discussed the matter with the officials of the P.F.R.A. here, and I am wondering whether any report has been received and, if so, whether the parliamentary assistant is in a position to tell me what stage the matter has reached. He has people before him who will be conversant with the matter and who may be able to state what the situation is.


Robert McCubbin: I am conversant with the matter and I understand what the hon. member is speaking about. The department has been in communication with the authorities out there. The minister wrote a letter yesterday, I believe, to Mr. Sommers, the minister of lands and forests of the province, with respect to the matter. Discussions are taking place and the hon. member can rest assured that something will be done in the

near future if the province and the dominion can come to an agreement on the project.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there some new requirement that has to be met by the province? Is it a question of the soundness of the engineering scheme itself? I want to know whether there is any stumbling block. There have been quite a few in the past, and I would be glad to know if there is any stumbling block in the way now which requires removal because if there is we would like to know what it is so that we can deal with it.


Robert McCubbin: I do not think there is. Discussions are always taking place with respect to all these irrigation projects. As the hon. member knows, there are some that the dominion and the province handle jointly and there are some that the dominion, the province and the interested people in the community handle under a three-way agreement. These are some of the things that are being worked out with the province in respect of this project.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I will ask if I may have a copy of the correspondence. I have been in touch with the provincial minister, the federal minister and the local authorities and on each occasion they have always assured me-particularly the department here-that I would be kept informed. Yet quite frequently it happens that something develops which is thrown up later, and then you have to go back over the whole ground again.
I should like to know what the picture is.
I do not want to delay the discussion tonight but I want to be assured I will be kept informed of the course of negotiations.


Robert McCubbin: I do not think there is anything further that I can say or do because discussions are under way, and until these break down I do not think there is anything we need to do with respect to the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They have broken down so many times in the past.


George Hugh Castleden: With respect to the P.F.A.A. item I notice that there is a reduction in the amount. It is evident already that there is going to be a large amount of land in the prairie provinces that will be eligible for P.F.A.A. assistance on account of flooding. Is there sufficient staff on hand to do the job of inspection work that is anticipated for this year?


Robert McCubbin: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
49. Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act $2,097,180.	1
Mr. Purdy:: Mr. Chairman, after all the dry talk from the west, perhaps we can come down to the maritimes where the maritime marshland rehabilitation activities are somewhat comparable to prairie farm rehabilitation. I am sure that any observer in the gallery of the house during this session would come to the conclusion that the only place in Canada where any agriculture is carried on is the western provinces. If my figures are right, one-third of those in Canada who make their living off the land reside in the three western provinces and, important though it is to the income of this country, they produce little more than two-fifths of the cash income from farms. Therefore I do believe that agriculture in the rest of Canada should receive some attention.
I come now to the question of maritime marshland rehabilitation. This project, as I said a moment ago, is comparable to what is going on in the west. At the outset I should like to say how pleased we in the maritime provinces are that this great work has been undertaken. We have a splendid force of men working there and they are doing a good job. It is true that when they first came to the area a great many of them were in the position of dealing with something new. They were used to having one or two floods a year to control. In the regions adjoining the bay of Fundy there are four floods a day to look after. The tide goes out twice a day and comes in twice a day and each tide, whether in or out, is a rush of water. As a matter of fact at Burntcoat in my constituency we have the highest tides in the world. The difference between high tide and low tide is 62 feet.
That is the kind of situation these engineers found themselves confronted with when they started to rehabilitate our marshlands. Sometimes I wonder just what manner of men the old Acadians were who won these lands back from the sea. They had no engineering staff. They were their own engineers. For tools they had a spade, an axe and probably a plow. For power they had a team of oxen. Yet they built the works, reclaimed the lands,

Supp ly-A griculture
and the works have stood the test for centuries. I only hope that in our present day and generation our men are building as well as the people of old.
Now, I might speak of this Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. It was my privilege, in the former days when I was a member of this house, to be somewhat interested in this project. I recall very well that we carried the ball on that item between 1936 and 1945. We had the subject before the committee on rehabilitation, and they recommended it. Then, we took it up with the Minister of Agriculture and with the ministers of agriculture of the three maritime provinces. The provincial ministers looked upon it as an entirely federal project. After some discussion it was decided that those of us who were very much interested in this project should perhaps take a little more active part, so there was an unofficial committee formed. This unofficial committee conferred on the problem with the Minister of Agriculture and the various provincial ministers of agriculture. The committee consisted of the hon. member for Westmorland, then Mr. Emmerson; the then member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, Mr. Douglas, and myself. Unfortunately, the two first-named gentlemen have now gone to their great reward, so it remains for me, as the last remaining member of the committee, to perhaps reminisce for one moment.
As I say, we went to work and we eventually persuaded the provincial ministers of agriculture that they should also participate in this great project. Eventually it was worked out as a three-way plan, with the federal government keeping the water off the land; the provincial government arranging for the larger drainage canals, and the land owners looking after the small drainage canals. As I said a moment ago, we worked on this project for years. It was my great pleasure, before my services were dispensed with for a time by the electors of Colchester -Hants, to find in the estimates a small amount for general surveys and for a little exploratory work. I am happy today to see that the infant I left here in 1945 has now grown to a very commendable size. As a matter of fact the expenditure on the project, including this year, has been something in the neighbourhood of $8 million or $9 million, along with considerable provincial money and the land owners' contributions.
Now, with that background I was probably a little bit prejudiced but rather interested the other day to hear the Leader of the Opposition claim that the Bennett administration was responsible for the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; that may be so. Possibly they are responsible to the same extent

the Rhodes-Harrington government in Nova Scotia was responsible for old age pensions. They passed such an act, and then never did anything about it. It is peculiar how the Conservatives try to take credit for these things. I recall being in the local house at the time this legislation was enacted, and I had something to do with the provincial government legislation which is complementary to this act. I recall that in the federal parliament the then member for Colchester -Hants said that the Minister of Agriculture was entitled to some credit for putting in this act but that the member for Cumberland, Mr. Black, was entitled to most of the credit. When I recall some of the things that happened from 1935 to 1945, I can say that it is true Mr. Black did make two or three speeches in the house. However, I know from experience that with a project like this you have to do more work than speak in the house.
However, this great project is continuing and there are now 119 marsh bodies under this reclamation scheme in the maritimes. They have reclaimed some 66,000 acres and along with this there are 375,000 acres of land being operated. Perhaps that is not a large area in the grain growing country, but in the maritimes it is quite a lot of land. Again I wish to compliment the engineers and the director of this work for what they are doing. There is just one other thought I am going to leave with them. Their work is not yet completed. Let them carry on, and complete the work.
There is another problem in the maritimes, and that is our meadow lands and our interval lands. When our marshlands are reclaimed this commission should, during the interval, be studying what could be done to save the interval lands because year by year they are going to the sea. Unless we can keep a good percentage of our people in Nova Scotia gainfully employed on the land we will not be able to take our full part in this great dominion as our forefathers intended we should do. As I say, if the engineers in the maritime field could study the problem along our various river valleys-such great rivers as the Stewiacke, Musquodoboit, North Salmon and St. Mary's-they will find there are large areas going to sea. After it goes to sea, it is no good. If we could keep these areas in production in Nova Scotia, it would maintain this beauty spot and this great asset to Canada.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I just want to ask a question or two. The hon. member for Colchester-Hants has reviewed the situation. On page 122 of the estimates book, there is an item for construction or acquisition of buildings and

works, $1,551,000. Does the word "building" mean the construction of buildings or is that for the building of dikes to keep the water out?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, that is for the building of aboideau and dikes.


Gage Workman Montgomery: It is not buildings?


Robert McCubbin: No.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I notice that this item is $400,000 less this year. Is that determined by the amount of work that is laid out ahead of time or is it just an estimate that is up and down each year?


Robert McCubbin: Unfortunately, last year we were not able to do all that we planned on doing. There was an overestimate. We hope the work can be completed this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
51. To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $104,615.
John Alpheus Charlton: Under this Agricultural
Prices Support Act item, I wonder whether the minister could tell us just what products, and the amounts, the government is now holding?


Robert McCubbin: The only product the agricultural prices support board is holding now is butter, to the extent of 32 million or 33 million pounds. We are not holding any other products, any meat of any kind. We have sold about 25 million pounds of butter.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is the board still holding 32 million pounds? I understood a great deal more was sold. What was the maximum amount of butter held this year during the spring period?


Robert McCubbin: About 33 million pounds was the maximum held.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about all that butter which we heard was sold for two and a half cents less than the floor?


Robert McCubbin: We sold 24 million pounds, and we have acquired new butter this year. We hold only 8 million or 9 million pounds of the old butter, and the rest of the butter I mentioned is new.


John Alpheus Charlton: Since you sold the other?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was talking to the minister yesterday, and I did not understand him to say that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
644. To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for assistance to farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for crop losses that occurred between the 1st day of August, 1950, and
Supply-Agriculture
the 14th day of May, 1953, in respect of which there is no authority under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make awards, $17,000.
John Alpheus Charlton: At page 19 of the details I find an item of $17,000 for assistance to farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for crop losses in respect of which there is no authority under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make awards. These losses occurred, according to the estimate, between August 1, 1950 and May 14, 1953, and it is pointed out that there is no authority under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make awards. No detail is given at page 19. Under what circumstances are those amounts paid out, when they do not come under the act?


Robert McCubbin: These were some farmers lying outside the area that came under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The act was amended last year but it was not amended in time to cover them. These farmers are just on the outside area, and would not be covered by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Yet they were entitled to assistance.


John Alpheus Charlton: Has the act been changed to include single farms within townships? The sum of $17,000 will not go very far. It would not be just on the odd individual farm, would it?


Robert McCubbin: It refers to a few farmers on crown land just outside the area. They have been brought under it now.


Major James William Coldwell: Were those farms contiguous to the area, or were they included in the enlarged area as an irregular group? There is no authority under the act, is there, for the department to enlarge the area, other than the one laid down in the act? This would include those who were outside what one might call the geometric area, is that what it is?


Robert McCubbin: That is my understanding of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I happened to be on the
legislation committee when this provision was proposed, and I remember the facts. Parliament on May 14, 1953 included this area within the act, and this is to pay for losses in the period of time before it was included. There were some hard cases.


John Alpheus Charlton: It includes both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with this, but I think we should have more detail about this $17,000. It says quite plainly that there is no authority under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make awards.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.

Supply-Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: It cannot be as the Secretary of State says.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Authority is being sought here because there is no authority under the act.


John Alpheus Charlton: You said the act was
amended in 1952, did you not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On May 14, 1953, and this area was brought under the act. But this estimate is to seek authority to pay between August 1, 1950 and May 1953, when it was not under the act. This is asking parliament to give authority now.


John Alpheus Charlton: It says:
To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for assistance to farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for crop losses that occurred between the 1st day of August, 1950, and the 14th day of May, 1953, in respect of which there is no authority under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make awards.
It does not say anything about any act being changed there, at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am explaining that the act was not changed on that date.


Robert McCubbin: Like the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand I found it difficult to understand this vote. I believe it would be well if I were to place the explanation on record that is given with respect to it.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act, paragraph (c), subsection 3 of section 3, was amended in 1950 to provide, inter alia, that crown and municipal lands not sold or granted prior to December 31, 1940, would not be eligible for award. An amendment in 1951 excluded from the provisions of the 1950 amendment all lands lying north of the south boundary of township sixty in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. A further amendment in 1953 excluded from the provisions of the 1950 amendment other lands in the northern parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The amendment of 1951 with respect to the lands in Alberta and British Columbia came into force on August 1, 1950, while the 1953 amendment with respect to the Manitoba and Saskatchewan lands became effective on May 14, 1953.
The situation is the same in all four provinces with respect to the lands affected by these amendments, and the advisability of making the effective dates the same has been recommended because a number of farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan excluded from award by the 1950 amendment suffered
IMr. Pickersgill.]
crop losses prior to 1953 and it is felt that they are as entitled to awards as the farmers in Alberta. However, the number of such farmers and the amount involved is so small, being no more than $17,000, it is recommended instead that an ex gratia payment be made to such farmers.
According to a Department of Justice opinion, such ex gratia payments can be made to these farmers upon executive approval, but it would be necessary to have a special item in the supplementary estimates to which the payments would be charged.


Daniel Roland Michener: The substance of the remarks of the parliamentary assistant, as I understand it, is that this was contrary to legislation passed by parliament, and this estimate is now brought forward to be approved by parliament in another form.


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


Daniel Roland Michener: And I suppose the minister justifies it on the basis of some equities that make it proper. But the fact remains that we are undoing what parliament has already done.


Major James William Coldwell: My understanding is that this is to bring it into line with farmers in other provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: It is to put the farmers of Saskatchewan on the same basis as farmers m British Columbia and Alberta, who were treated that way under the amendment. If that is what it is, then there is no objection to it. But I must say that it struck me in the same way as it did my hon. friend, that unless there is a question of equity involved and this removes the unfairness, there could be no excuse for it. Then, the amount is small, and that struck me rather forcibly, because I would have thought there would have been many more farmers entitled to this than apparently there are, according to this vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: However attractive it may be to have people altering the law in order to produce what they consider to be equity, it is rather a far-reaching conception, if they are prepared to accept it. We might have different ideas of what equities are. It often happens even among such reasonable men as ourselves. One really wonders how far it is going to go. The question of legislation by estimate has been up here before, and I think the Prime Minister went on record as frowning on it very severely.

This may be the one exception that should be tolerated. It seems to me a very questionable procedure.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is obvious we cannot inquire into the equities of the cases here tonight. If the minister would table a list of cases and the payments made to these people, then any hon. member who is interested in inquiring could see it. That would probably meet the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only reason I intervene in this is that I am a member of the government and I was present when the decision was made to ask the committee to pass this estimate. No payments have yet been made because the government had no authority to make any payment. We are now humbly asking this committee to allow us to make the payments. The argument that was put before us, and which convinced us that we should ask for this, was that in 1950 certain townships up to a certain distance north-I cannot remember the parallel of latitude-were included under the act in British Columbia and Alberta. Saskatchewan and Manitoba were not included because there were practically no farming areas that far north in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It was subsequently discovered that there were a few areas in the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba which should be included, and we in the government felt that what parliament thought was good for Alberta and British Columbia, parliament would think was good for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It so happened that parliament had brought Manitoba and Saskatchewan under the act last year, but it was found there were a few cases of hardship in the intervening period between those two dates, and it was thought that to amend the whole act for this purpose would really not be warranted; that this was the kind of thing that could properly be provided for in the estimates. That is the explanation, and that is why we are asking authority to make these payments.


John Alpheus Charlton: By the same token, if an individual in Ontario, for instance, had a complete crop failure he would be as much entitled to this as anyone else. It is outside the area, and the government is starting a precedent, and you might have demands from many sections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As it was explained to us, these payments are governed by the same rules precisely as are applied under the act.
Supply-Agriculture
They are not individual cases. They are governed by the same rules as are applied under the act generally. The rules of the act are applied, but the act was not amended for that area at that time.


Daniel Roland Michener: Surely there is no mystery about it. If the minister would file the numbers of the payments that have been made- obviously these are ascertainable-running to $17,000 it would answer the question. The areas that are affected are very clear. I suggest that the information should be given to this committee, because the committee is being asked by vote to undo what parliament has already done by legislation. The information should be tabled before the estimate is passed.


Mr. Weaver:: Perhaps I can give some information to the committee that would make this clear. As has already been said, the act was amended in 1951 to bring in certain parts of Alberta and British Columbia. The date in the amendment was such that payments were made on the 1950 crop, which hon. members will recall was frozen in northern Alberta. The same thing was done last year with regard to the area now under discussion, in northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan; but owing to an oversight the date of payment was made August, 1953, instead of August, 1951, taking in the crop that had been damaged similarly in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Some of the inequity rose in this way. About three years ago certain crown lands in the provinces were excluded by this house because they had not been settled up to that time. These two amendments corrected that point, but while they did exist those who had settled on lands under the Veterans Land Act did get those payments. Therefore all through those years some farmers got the payments and their next-door neighbours who were not settled under the Veterans Land Act did not get them. That led to inequities, and that is the reason for the small number concerned.
For about five or six years after the war only veterans were allowed to settle on those lands. About two years ago, before this amendment was made, others besides veterans were allowed to settle there and they are the ones on whom the hardship was worked. They were the ones who were excluded. This corrects that condition. Some of these people lost their crops in the floods in the areas

Supply-Fisheries
of The Pas, and in the Mackenzie constituency and in the area north of Swan River. Those who were not veterans did not get the payments.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is the parliamentary assistant prepared to give the information I have asked for, Mr. Chairman?


Robert McCubbin: I do not see any reason why it cannot be tabled but unfortunately we have not got it as yet.


Daniel Roland Michener: I appreciate that, and that is why I suggest it be tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES Field services-
142.	Fishermen's indemnity and loan plan-administrative expenses, $209,565.
George Clyde Nowlan: This item provides for the administrative expenses of the fishermen's indemnity and loan plan. This is a new item. The total amount involved is $209,565, which is a fairly sizeable amount. Can the minister or the parliamentary assistant give us a breakdown of what is involved in this amount? How much has been lent? How many loans are outstanding? In other words, give us a background of this amount for head office expenses.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: This item is for the administration of the fishermen's indemnity and loan plan; it has nothing whatever to do with loans.


George Clyde Nowlan: It says:	"Administrative
expenses".


John Watson MacNaught: No loans have been made.


George Clyde Nowlan: I note the item says "administrative expenses-fishermen's indemnity and loan plan." If the item means anything it means administrative expenses and nothing else. Frankly it seems to me to be a very large amount for administrative expenses. I should like to know how much of it involves loans.


John Watson MacNaught: This item is provided for the administration of the indemnity fund; that is, lobster trap insurance and boat insurance. As will be obvious to hon. members, there is a tremendous amount of waterfront to be covered, and a number of officials are needed to administer all the details in connection with the appraisal of boats and lobster traps, and the inspection of loss and

damage claims. For example, when an insurance application is made, the boats or traps have to be looked at, inspected, and appraised. Similarly when a loss occurs, an inspection has to be made to see if a loss has been made, whether that loss is actual, and the amount of the loss, or claim for damage.
There are 41 officials involved, five at headquarters, 14 in Newfoundland, 10 in the maritime area, six in the Gaspe area and six in the Pacific coast area. There are considerable travelling expenses involved because the officials have to travel to the different fishing communities to carry out these duties. There is also some chartering of boats necessary and all these items make up the amount in the estimate.


George Clyde Nowlan: How many are on the board?


John Watson MacNaught: There is no board, Mr. Chairman, because this work is carried out departmentally.


George Clyde Nowlan: How many insurance plans are there in effect?


John Watson MacNaught: I have the information here. When the estimates were last before the house the hon. member for, I believe, Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare asked for that information and the minister promised to place it on the record. I have it here and I will read it in part. The number of certificates of eligibility issued to May 31, 1954 under the "fishermen's indemnity fund- vessels" was 1,783, and the appraised value of these vessels was $2,660,496. The total premiums collected amounted to $26,000-odd, and the amount of disbursements on claims amounted to $17,543.82. In connection with lobster traps indemnity fund the number of certificates of eligibility were 771. The number of lobster traps involved was 125,243, and the total premiums collected amounted to $14,321.75.


George Clyde Nowlan: What were the losses?


John Watson MacNaught: The losses amounted to $15,855.50, so in the case of lobster traps the losses were greater than the premiums. In the case of the vessels the premiums were some $8,000-odd greater than the losses. I have this table here which breaks down the figures into provinces and with the consent of the committee I will put this table on Hansard.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member leave to place this table on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Fisheries


John Watson MacNaught: The table is as follows:
FISHERMEN'S INDEMNITY FUND-VESSELS Summary by Provinces-July 6, 1953 to May 31, 1954
Cr.-Receipts	Dr.	-Disbursements	Dr.	-Disbursements	Applications-Premiums	Premium refunds	Loss and damage claims	Number of C. of E.	Appraised value	Total premiums collected	Number of vessels	Appraised value	Amount of refunds	Number of vessels	Appraised value	Amount of indemnity$	$ cts.	$	$ cts.	$	$ cts.Newfoundland	934	743,956	7,439 56	2	785	5 08	5	9,285	5,483 58Nova Scotia	328	651,344	6,513 44	7	18,060	137 14	4	8,700	5,220 00Prince Edward Island	53	50,890	508 90	NU	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilNew Brunswick	63	120,740	1,207 40	1	1,600	12 32	1	4,000	2,400 00Quebec	144	123,144	1,231 44	3	524	2 79	8	4,830	2,991 24British Columbia	261	970,422	9,704 22	10	23,800	169 34	1	2,415	1,449 00Total	1,783	2,660,496	26,604 96	23	44,769	326 67	19	29,230	17,543 82
FISHERMEN'S INDEMNITY FUND-LOBSTER TRAPS Summary by Provinces-August 6, 1953 to May 31, 1954
Cr.-Receipts	Dr.	-Disbursements	Dr.	-Disbursements	Applications-Prem iums	Premium refunds	Loss and damage claims	Number of C. of E.	Number of lobster traps	Total premiums collected	Number of appli- cations	Number of lobster traps	Amount of refunds	Number of appli- cations	Number of lobster traps	Amount of indemnity$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Newfoundland	311	30,995	2,824 18	Nil	NU	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilNova Scotia	314	58,862	8,705 11	1	92	10 13	114	9,269	15,134 25Prince Edward Island	53	18,514	1,566 27	1	300	22 50	5	536	385 50New Brunswick	6	1,094	128 13	Nil	Nil	NU	4	403	335 75Quebec	87	15,778	1,098 06	1	210	21 00	Nil	Nil	NilTotal	771	125,243	14,321 75	3	602	53 63	123	10,208	15,855 50


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the parliamentary assistant for this information. Frankly it appears to be a somewhat large amount. Of course, this is the first year in which it has appeared, but apparently we have 1,700 certificates issued on fishing craft and 700 for lobster traps. That is roughly 2,500-plus and we have $17,000 of a loss in one case and a $15,000 loss in the other. The total administrative expenses amount to $209,000. I do not think any insurance company would feel that they could operate on that basis. I am not suggesting that this fund should not be operated in that way. I think it is a good fund and I think it does offer some benefits to fishermen which are badly needed. In a year's time, of course, when we have a basis of comparison we can
then check the year's operation and see just how reasonable these expenditures are. But when one looks at the details, without discussing them at length, I must say that the expenditure appears to be rather high. I think a year from now, when these matters are under consideration by the committee, the minister should be able to give us a clearer breakdown of the work done in the administering of this relatively small sum of money. I notice there is a substantial amount for boats and I suppose this covers Newfoundland where it is likely to be more than it would be on the mainland because the mainland could be covered by automobiles. But I would point out again that the item seems to me to be altogether too high for what is involved in the work of this department and

Supply-Fisheries
we will expect a clearer accounting when this item comes before the committee again.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps I should say at the outset to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that we have points in British Columbia which are not easily accessible.


George Clyde Nowlan: This is not for British
Columbia.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, my reason for rising is to ask the minister whether it is anticipated that the staff listed here to service this plan will be the permanent staff and whether the number employed in connection with the organization of the scheme will be reduced as the scheme is streamlined.


John Watson MacNaught: We do not anticipate there will be any reduction in the number of personnel required to carry out the administration of the plan. It may well be that as it goes along and more fishermen and boat owners take advantage of it, more officials may be needed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to ask about the item amounting to $30,000 covering travelling and removal expenses.


John Watson MacNaught: This item provides for travelling and living expenses of the officials at headquarters responsible for the administration of the plan while absent from headquarters on plan business, and this covers the expenses of four area administrators, senior members of their staff and appraisers in the field. At headquarters the amount involved is $2,500; in the Newfoundland area $9,000; in the maritime area $8,800; in the Gaspe area $5,500; and in the Pacific area $4,200.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I still do not understand the use of the word "removal".


John Watson MacNaught: It is civil service terminology, Mr. Chairman, and this item applies when it is necessary to move a person who is domiciled in one area to another with his family and effects.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I can understand it in that sense even if this were not the civil service, but the way in which the parliamentary assistant spoke before I understood this travelling expenses item was simply for people moving about. Do I understand there is included in that item the cost of actual removal expenses where a man stationed in one place is moved to another?


John Watson MacNaught: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
tMr. Nowlan.]
143.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $40,000.
John Angus MacLean: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
144.	Headquarters administration, $131,090.
Mr. Hamilton:: I have one or two comments which I rather hope will be helpful to the government. Before I make them, however, I should like to ask a simple question of the acting minister or the parliamentary assistant. How many members are there in the fisheries research board?


John Watson MacNaught: There are 18 members on the board.


William McLean Hamilton: They serve without pay. Is that correct?


John Watson MacNaught: They get per diem allowances when they meet.


William McLean Hamilton: Is that particular item included in your estimates at any point?


John Watson MacNaught: It is "honoraria to board members and others", $2,700.


William McLean Hamilton: I think you will find that was for last year, Mr. Chairman. There is a blank for this year. Of course, travelling expenses have gone up by $8,000. Perhaps they are going to pay them in that way.


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a change this year in the item. The honoraria are dropped and the per diem allowances are now included in the item "travel by board members, $20,000".


William McLean Hamilton: You know, Mr. Chairman, I had not expected to deal with this matter to any extent, but when you dig into something is it not amazing what you find? Here we have a case where in the past people

Supply-Fisheries
willingly-and we can only presume and I want to think and do think it was willingly -were giving their services to the government of Canada and were being paid a straightforward amount as an honorarium on which you could put your finger. This year we have a switch. We are taking that amount and, in the very words of the parliamentary assistant, are now including it in travelling expenses. As I remember it, he used the words, "The honoraria are now included in travelling expenses". We are hiding it. We are taking away from this parliament the opportunity to examine exactly what we are doing. Not only are we hiding it but we are taking $2,700 last year under honoraria and turning it into an $8,000 increase in travelling expenses, and that is probably why they are hiding it.
As a comparative newcomer it is astonishing to me to find something like that being done and I think it is certainly something which is not to the credit either of the government or the person who drew up these estimates. It gives one cause to wonder, among other things, how many other similar items are hidden in these estimates which are called one thing and which are actually another. As a matter of fact, are there any other similar cases with respect to the fisheries research board about which the parliamentary assistant knows and can tell us?


John Watson MacNaught: The only thing I can point out to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace is that this item is handled in exactly the same manner as it is handled by other boards, for example, the national research council and other similar boards. It is approved by the treasury board and it is in exactly the same terms.


William McLean Hamilton: That is interesting information. Therefore we can assume that the other departments of the government which have similar boards are also hiding honoraria under the designation of travelling expenses. I think that would be a safe assumption and, of course, interestingly enough we must not lose sight of the fact-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension. Honoraria were paid last year. They are no longer being paid. A change has been made in policy. The people who used to be paid honoraria are now paid a per diem allowance which is part of the travelling expenses.


William McLean Hamilton: That is again an interesting statement. It is not quite the way I heard it before. Can the minister tell us whether this amount as honoraria was taxable?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I am not an
expert on the subject. I have never received an honorarium.


William McLean Hamilton: I think it is a safe assumption to say that such honoraria are taxable. I think it is also a very definite statement of fact that travelling expenses as such are not taxable. I think it is very interesting that the department, for reasons known to themselves, have chosen to follow this course of action. It almost sounds as if one department of the government is trying to do the other out of a certain amount of revenue, although at that it is a rather commendable feature.
In general for a few moments tonight I should like to deal with some of the publications issued by the fisheries research board which are included in these estimates. I asked a question about this matter on the orders of the day some time ago. The Minister of Fisheries apparently did not read the question. He read the newspaper reports thereon, and he replied at some length in the house a while ago. At that time the minister claimed that the purpose of these publications was to exchange information between scientists in Canada and elsewhere, and with that we can have very little quarrel. Referring to these publications, the minister said that it is really a measure of economy avoiding waste by duplication of effort just through the limited publication of current investigations.
The interesting thing about that is that according to the return tabled in the house by the Secretary of State in answer to my question none of these publications has ever been sold, not one copy, and not one copy has been distributed without charge. In other words, according to the parliamentary return tabled in the house, the printing of these publications has served absolutely no useful purpose. They have been printed and they have not been distributed. The parliamentary return is sessional paper No. 117-A, tabled on Wednesday, April 7, 1954.
The minister in the course of his remarks did make one rather interesting assertion. In order to demonstrate the small cost to the taxpayer, as the minister saw it, of these various publications he argued that the wastage which he admitted can be calculated by taking the remaining copies which are on hand and valuing them at their selling price. The resulting figure according to him represents the waste arising from the printing of the publications. I am going to explore this a litle bit because it smacks very much of the same kind of financial wizardry which

we were discussing a few minutes ago in connection with travelling expenses. The minister said, as found at page 4506 of Hansard of May 7:
The important point as far as waste is concerned is the amount which is surplus.
As an example of his mathematics, he referred to the publication covering the cruising speed of goldfish. You will remember that one. There was another one on "Abdominal Width and Sexual Maturity of Female Lobsters on the Canadian Atlantic Coast", commonly referred to by most of the newspapers as "The sex life of the lobster". With reference to the one on the cruising speed of goldfish the minister said:
We have thirteen copies of this left at 20 cents each, which means a surplus cost of $2.60.
The argument that the selling price and not the cost of the publication determines the cost of the service to the taxpayer is completely misleading, unethical and fallacious. It is like saying that the fire department of a city does not cost the municipal taxpayer a cent because he does not have to foot the bill when he calls the fire department to put out a fire. If you used this argument in the way it is used by the minister you could print a million copies of a publication for free distribution, then decide not to distribute them, and there would be no wastage because even as thirteen times 20 cents is $2.60-and he says that is the surplus cost in that case-a million times zero is still zero.
Therefore according to his argument a million copies of a publication which he has printed and then decided to throw away have not cost the taxpayer a cent. Obviously too this sort of argument means that the more valuable a publication becomes in so far as its selling price is concerned, the more the taxpayer is saved by the government giving it away. This curious type of saving increases steadily as more and more copies are given away for nothing.
For example, if the government has on hand 1,000 copies of a $2 publication, the wastage according to the minister's reasoning is $2,000. If they give away 500 copies, the wastage drops to only $1,000. If they give them all away, then there is no wastage at all. I am using the minister's reasoning and everything except the minister's figures. Pursuing this argument to its logical conclusion, and using the minister's reasoning exactly as he used it-it must be good reasoning because he is a Rhodes scholar, Mr. Chairman; if this is the type of reasoning that comes from Rhodes scholars on the government side, I am glad we have a different type of Rhodes scholar on our side.

Supply-Fisheries


An hon. Member:: So are we.


William McLean Hamilton: In pursuing this Rhodes scholar type of reasoning, there would be absolutely no wastage at all if, as soon as these publications were received from the printer, they were all dumped into the Ottawa river. Perhaps that is what the minister had in mind when he developed his arguments. In any event, I shudder to think what might happen if some of the rumours we have heard recently become true and the Minister of Fisheries becomes the Minister of Finance, and retains his philosophy that the more you throw away the more you save. It practically qualifies him to lead the Social Credit party.


An hon. Member:: Louder and funnier.


William McLean Hamilton: A few days ago the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings told a very interesting little story in the house. As I remember it was about a fish ladder built in his constituency, only when the ladder was built there was not any water so they had to go around and bail the fish out, then dump them above the ladder. This sounds amusing at first. It is hard to believe that any sensible, sane, sound group of men would do things like that.
But let us have another example, stating facts again, to see what these hon. gentlemen from the other side can do. In his attempt to defend some of these publications, you will remember the publications which the parliamentary return said had not been sold or given away, one of them concerned the cruising speed of goldfish. The minister said it resulted from research in connection with the Hell's Gate fishway in the Fraser river canyon. He said these were fish studies carried out in order to determine the range and cruising speed of fish. Then he went on to say how valuable that information was in connection with fisheries.
The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that according to the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, bulletin 3, page 10, the right bank of the fishway was completed in the spring of 1945. The left bank fishway was constructed in two sections; the lower end was completed in the spring of 1945 and the upper section was not finished until the spring of 1946. In other words, everything was done by the spring of 1946. The pamphlet referred to was received for publication in March, 1947, covering experiments carried out between October 25 and November 30, 1946. This is an interesting fact, because it shows just how the taxpayer's money can be spent, and the government attitude towards so many of these things. It is apparent that, having completed

Supply-Fisheries
in the spring of 1946 the new fishways at an approximate cost of $2 million, about six months later in the fall of 1946 the government commenced an experiment with goldfish to see whether the fishways would work.
I think, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity that we can stand here and be glad that despite such bungling the fishways do work and that they are doing a job for the fisheries on the Pacific coast. Certainly it is no thanks to the government who built them first, then tried to find out later whether or not they worked.
Undoubtedly we are going to hear from one or two hon. members before very long who will try to turn these words of mine, as the Minister of Fisheries did previously; try to turn them into some sort of indictment of fisheries research generally. They will try to infer from these words that I am opposed to constructive undertakings in this field. I suppose that is part of debate, taking sincere words of a member on this side of the house and trying to controvert them or twist them and make them mean something else.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, to all those who may read or hear these remarks, that honest publication of worth-while things which are needed and used by people or by scientists is a good thing. I want to make it quite plain that, in my estimation at least, and I think that of my colleagues, good research, purposeful research, sincere and intelligent research is something that has the wholehearted approbation of myself and my colleagues.
But, Mr. Chairman, that does not necessarily condone, and I do not condone, such things as research which is carried on after a project is completed in order to see whether it is going to work. It does not condone publication of research which nobody wants to read. It does not condone, in another field, the transfer of remuneration to people who may be doing this research from a branch in which it is taxable into a field in which it is not taxable. It does not condone the hiding of honoraria and other things like that, and including them in another category. It does not condone, Mr. Chairman-the government will be glad to hear this because we are coming to the end of the session and it is probably the last thing I will have to say this session; I am glad I can make this my closing remarks-for one moment the continuous wastage of public funds which could be more effectively spent in other ways, and the almost misrepresentation of this wastage and the attempt to make it sound as if it was doing a useful purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to allow what the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has said to go without the feeble 
attempt of someone who was not good enough to get a Rhodes scholarship to reply to it.


William McLean Hamilton: I have not got one either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman said his observations were sincere. I am not going to question his sincerity, but one is forced to question either his sincerity or his intelligence. I have in my hand the sessional paper from which the hon. member quoted, and of course when it is read it does not give the impression that he has sought to give to it. The answer came only from the department for which I have the constitutional responsibility, the department of public printing and stationery-it did not come from the Department of Fisheries at all-and it begins with this note:
The above are excerpts from government publications which are not available for free distribution_
That means free distribution by the printing bureau. In other words they are for sale, and they are in the catalogue if anybody wants to buy them. It appeared that nobody did want to buy them from the queen's printer; and I think it is perfectly obvious why nobody wanted to buy them from the queen's printer because, in spite of their titillating titles, I do not think they are very popular reading, and I doubt if even my hon. friend from Kamloops would be very worried about having them in the hands of children. They are provided by the department concerned-in this case the Department of Fisheries-for the use of technical staffs and for exchange purposes between scientists.
I said a little while ago that I did not know whether honoraria were taxable, because I never had received an honorarium. But, as hon. members know, I used to be an academic-while I was still respectable-and in that capacity I occasionally published articles in magazines. One could always get a number of extra copies of them for practically nothing, for about the cost of the paper. Putting the impression on a few extra copies, even by the Queen's Quarterly, which I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would agree is not run extravagantly or wastefully, could be done at almost no extra cost.
That is why these extra prints are produced. And they are stuck in the catalogue- that is in the queen's printer's catalogue- just in case somebody somewhere might see them and want to buy one of them. And it is done in order to make this a complete catalogue of all government publications.
I have made it my business to know a little about what the fisheries research board is doing, because it concerns the livelihood of most of the people who voted for me, and most of the people who voted against me

in the last election. And I doubt if there is any organization in the whole of the government service that is doing better work. I do not say there are not many others that are doing just as good work, but I do not think they are doing better work than is being done by this board. And I am sure the papers they publish are things that are worth having some permanent record of. I do not pretend to be a scientist and I am not going to pretend that I can say precisely what they are worth.
Then, on the other point raised by the hon. member, while I am no expert on the income tax, I am told that whether an allowance is called an honorarium or a per diem allowance, the income tax branch takes exactly the same view of it.


Mr. Green:: On May 7 I asked the minister about the situation in Hecate strait so far as the crab fisheries are concerned. At that time he promised to bring in some figures. I should like to point out to the parliamentary assistant that this situation appears to be very serious, namely, that American fishing vessels are getting the great bulk of the crabs being caught in Hecate strait. They are taking them up to an American fishing port in Alaska, and apparently are doing a big business. Canadians are worried for fear the whole fisheries will be ruined before something is done by the government.
I have here a copy of a publication known as the Pacific Fisherman. This is the issue of August, 1953. In it I find an interesting article with the heading "Pacific Pearl of Alaska". Pacific Pearl is the name of an American company. Then there is a subheading which states "New Industry is built upon Hecate Strait Crab Resource". Reading the first paragraph, I find this:
Four years have made Ketchikan, Alaska, the principal center of Pacific crab canning-four years and one company-Pacific Pearl of Alaska, Inc., which initiated the operation there in 1950.
Then the article goes on to say:
Two developments took Pacific Pearl to Alaska:
First, the cyclic shortage of crabs on the Washington coast, where the organization previously had centered its activities.
Second, the proving of a substantial population of Pacific crabs in the international waters of Dixon entrance and Hecate strait.
Dixon entrance is between the northern shore of the Queen Charlotte islands and Alaska; but Hecate strait lies between Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia. The article explains that there are eight of these boats carrying on the crab fisheries. It goes on to say:
These boats are able to carry around 1,200 dozen crabs each in a full load. All are equipped to use their holds as live tanks, supplied by pumps with
Supply-Fisheries
a constant supply of fresh sea-water . . . Each boat fishes from 400 to 500 crab pots-drum-shaped iron frames, protected from electrolysis by rubber coverings, and with the netting made of stainless steel wire.
Then we find the subheading "International Ocean Waters yield Prime Crab Catch". It shows clearly that the Americans regard Hecate strait as international waters in which they have as much right as Canadians. It says:
Fishing is done in international waters in Dixon entrance, through which passes the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia; and in Hecate strait, separating the Queen Charlotte islands from the Canadian mainland ... In mid-summer at the latitude of Dixon entrance and Hecate strait the long hours of daylight permit the crab boats to find and haul their pots 21 hours out of the 24. Operations usually are suspended at midnight, to be resumed at 3 in the morning. Such hours mean hard work for the crew, and the job is anything but a rest. Once a boat has run her string, she heads for home-
That is, for Alaska.
-without a moment's waiting. Her hold is full of thousands of scuttling, clawing crabs, as lively and pugnacious as when they crawled and clashed on the sandy sea bed.
These crabs, which I claim are Canadian crabs, are taken to an Alaskan port and are shipped into the mainland of the United States as American crabs. They do not have to pay any duty. A Canadian fisherman who catches some of the crabs in the strait has to pay duty in order to sell those same crabs to the United States. The only place he has any protection at all is within three miles of the shore, and I believe that practically all the crab fishing is done beyond the three-mile limit.
I believe the crab fisheries off the Washington coast have been pretty well cleaned out, and I am afraid the same will happen in Hecate strait. We will wake up one of these days to find that while we have been trying to get up enough courage to tell the Americans that Hecate strait is Canadian territorial water, their fishermen will have cleaned out all the Canadian crabs. The parliamentary assistant must realize that that situation is intolerable. I hope he can give some reassurance tonight that the government is moving to put a stop to this procedure.


John Watson MacNaught: When the estimates were before the committee on May 7 the minister did promise to bring in certain information for the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra relative to crab fishing catches in Hecate strait.
Data concerning the catch of crabs by Americans in the year 1953 are not yet available. The only source from which we can get this information is Seattle, and it is not yet available to us for 1953. However we do

Supply-Fisheries
know that there were 19 crab fishing vessels all well equipped with the latest offshore pots and operating at that time in Hecate strait.


Howard Charles Green: Is that 1953 or 1954?


John Watson MacNaught: As of June 20, 1953 there were 19 crab fishing vessels all equipped with live wells and the latest offshore pots. Of this number 10 were American, 8 from Washington state and two from California. These were using 5,100 crab pots. The remaining eight were Canadian vessels fishing 2,990 pots. The American fishery, however, in 1953 represented an increase of 2,500 traps over 1952. Then I can give the hon. member the statistics for the last three years. The American catch of crabs in Hecate strait: in 1950 they had six operating vessels and the catch was 880,292 pounds; in 1951 they had seven vessels operating and the catch was 960,749 pounds; in 1952 they had five vessels operating there and the catch was 1,169,062 pounds.
During the same period the landings of crabs taken by Canadian fishermen in the area of Hecate strait and Dixon entrance were for the year 1950, 722,000 pounds; in 1951, 808,303 pounds; in 1952,	1,105,100
pounds, and for 1953, 1,703,500 pounds.


Howard Charles Green: Has the parliamentary assistant the figures for Hecate strait as distinguished from the other?


John Watson MacNaught: No.


Howard Charles Green: These are not the figures I asked for. I asked for the figures for Hecate strait. The parliamentary assistant has included the figures from Dixon entrance, which I was not questioning.


John Watson MacNaught: The American figures I gave are for Hecate strait, purely for Hecate strait.


Howard Charles Green: The figures for the Americans were only Hecate strait?


John Watson MacNaught: Hecate strait.


Howard Charles Green: What are the Canadian figures?


John Watson MacNaught: I have not them broken down in that way. I am told that the statistical department has not broken them down in that way.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian figures are valueless if they include Hecate strait and Dixon entrance. Incidentally, the American figures are higher than the Canadian figures as it is except 1950, and the latter include both Hecate strait and Dixon entrance.


John Watson MacNaught: That is the way the figures are kept in our breakdown. I regret I cannot give any other figures at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I am told that as much as 80 per cent of the crabs taken from the three-mile limit in Hecate strait are taken by the Americans. Do the parliamentary assistant's officials quarrel with that estimate?


John Watson MacNaught: The officials tell me they can neither confirm nor deny that statement. They have no means of knowing whether it is correct or not.


Howard Charles Green: This fisheries research board has scientists on Queen Charlotte islands every summer. Is it not possible for them to find out what is happening there?


John Watson MacNaught: It would be possible for our officials to break these statistics down as far as Canadian catches are concerned, but as far as American catches are concerned, we have to rely on figures furnished by the American officials.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant get those figures? He has given me the Canadian crab figures for the Dixon entrance and Hecate strait combined. He can have the Hecate strait figures sent to me during the recess.


John Watson MacNaught: I will endeavour to do that, Mr. Chairman. Whenever the figures are provided to me, I will see that they are forwarded to the hon. member.
In connection with the other matter he brought up, namely, the international aspect of the Hecate strait, this is a matter that has caused concern to the department for many years. At the present time, as the hon. gentleman knows, it is receiving the consideration of an interdepartmental committee. I do not know when a report will be available, but I know the matter is receiving active consideration.


Howard Charles Green: No actual step has been taken since we discussed this matter in the house earlier in the session?


John Watson MacNaught: No.


Howard Charles Green: Has the Canadian government taken the stand that Hecate strait is Canadian territorial water?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that our view has always been that it is territorial water, and the American view is that it is the open sea. The same thing applies of course on the east coast in a good many places. We have never been able to reconcile a good many of these differences. As the hon. member knows, there is a case before the international court at the present time which may codify the international law in this respect. But there is no very effective way in which we can force the Americans to accept our view.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, there is no way in which we can stop the Americans from taking our crabs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We say they are ours; they say they are in the open sea.


Howard Charles Green: You are not going to stop at that. Does the minister say that Canada is going to sit back because the Americans say this water is international water and there is nothing we can do about it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the government would be delighted to have any practical suggestion that the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, or any other hon. member, could make as to how we can get the Americans to accept our view, as we certainly would like to have them accept our view.


Howard Charles Green: Why not have the matter taken to the international court? Is there any objection to that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not say, but I shall be glad to bring the suggestion to the attention of my colleagues.


John Watson MacNaught: Before the item passes, may I say that before he was called home this morning owing to some illness in his family, the hon. member for Charlotte asked me if I would make one comment when this item was before the committee. He wanted to know whether any additions would be made to the St. Andrews biological station this year. I want to put on record the fact that the department is aware that the space available there for scientists is rather inadequate, and that every consideration is being given to the advisability of enlarging it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
145. Operation and maintenance, $1,995,939.
Daniel Roland Michener: The item which has just been passed, this item and the next two items cover substantially all of the research work of the Department of Fisheries, and includes the substantial amount of $2,500,000. The research which relates to great lakes fisheries, I take it, is carried on in conjunction with the research board with which I had some association in Ontario. I am interested to know the relationship between the federal fisheries research board and the inland fisheries research and whether its jurisdiction is nation-wide. If the parliamentary assistant can tell me that I should like to make one or two further comments.


John Watson MacNaught: The scope of the board is nation-wide; it covers all of Canada, since it is carrying on investigations in the inland waters as well as on the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts.
Supply-Fisheries


Daniel Roland Michener: I take it the investigation in the great lakes is carried on in conjunction with provincial agencies, and that the whole thing is co-ordinated, as it ought to be. It is a very important and difficult kind of research, as I know. As every fisherman knows, the habits, the presence and the absence of fish, what makes them come and go, and where they are, is one of the most difficult things to deal with scientifically. The experiments on the great lakes that are helping to maintain these inland fisheries are of great importance, I assume, to people on both coasts and in all sections who make their livelihood from fishing.
The board with which I was concerned was the Ontario research board. It was made up of knowledgeable and reputable people who were good enough to lend their time and effort to direction of very substantial research expenditures. It is gratifying to know that there are people who will come forward for this kind of activity. I was interested to know the size of this board. I take it, it is distributed geographically, which is only fair. If the parliamentary assistant has no objection I am sure parliament would be glad to have the names of these people who are offering themselves voluntarily in this way to the furtherance of scientific research. If the names could be given to the committee so that we could recognize them for the work they are doing I would appreciate it.


John Watson MacNaught: I have not the names in front of me at the moment, but if this item could pass, one of the officials will write them up and then I can put them on the record in a few moments.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
help but be interested in an item amounting to more than $107,000 for travelling expenses. I am just wondering whether the parliamentary assistant or the minister, who gave us such a delightful exposition in Twillingate in answer to my last question, would care to give us a breakdown.


John Watson MacNaught: This item of $107,000 is made up as follows: directors and senior staff, $34,000; investigators in the field, $41,000; transportation of student assistants, $7,000; transportation of employees, $2,000; and removal expenses, $350.
It covers the travelling expenses of the directors of the stations on visits to the headquarters of the board, and attending meetings, and the expenses of directors and senior staff in following up the work in the field, as well as attending conferences and scientific meetings. The work of the biological stations, particularly, is spread over large areas

Supply-Fisheries
and the workers must cover those areas at intervals and for varying periods of time. This item makes provision for this necessary cost of the investigations. The terms approved for the employment of student assistants provide for the payment of transportation expenses, less $30, in reporting for duty and returning to home or university and this item provides for those costs. The provision of transportation to work of employees at the Atlantic biological station and the Pacific biological station is also included. Included also is provision for changing the headquarters of an employee of the Pacific biological station and paying his removal expenses.


William McLean Hamilton: The first item in the breakdown was $34,000?


John Watson MacNaught: That is correct.


William McLean Hamilton: Exactly on whom was that spent?


John Watson MacNaught: The directors and the senior staff.


William McLean Hamilton: How many people?


John Watson MacNaught: It seems from the check of the statistics in front of me that about 125 persons are covered.


William McLean Hamilton: The fisheries research department then has 125 directors and senior staff. Is that a correct assumption from the parliamentary assistant's answer?


John Watson MacNaught: That is approximately
correct.


William McLean Hamilton: In other words we have here, Mr. Chairman, an organization whose staff appears to be composed entirely of generals with very few privates. That would seem to be the case for we have in the headquarters administration about 14 people_


John Horace Dickey: We have 450 people there.


William McLean Hamilton: -and in the operation and maintenance staff we have some 442 including such persons as 73 seasonal assistants.
I am sure they are not included in the group, and I am quite sure assistant scientists would not be included.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely assistant scientists must be regarded as senior personnel. Look at the salaries.


William McLean Hamilton: I do not think we said "personnel". We said directors and senior staff. In other words, senior officials. I know it is a little bit annoying to the parliamentary assistant but we have seen cases in which we have had to watch the terminology being used in this house very carefully-


Walter Edward Harris: We certainly have.


William McLean Hamilton: In other words, one out of every three of the people involved in this scientific organization would appear to be senior members of the senior staff. Is that correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder what else the hon. member would expect in a scientific organization which is engaged primarily in research. Would he expect a major number of the employees to be common labourers or office boys or would he expect them to be scientists?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
147. To provide for federal share of administrative expenses of great lakes fisheries research committee established jointly with the province of Ontario; and to provide for a program designed to eliminate lampreys in the great lakes, $165,000.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how the department is getting along with the elimination of the lampreys in the great lakes which play such havoc with white-fish and other fish. I am just asking that out of curiosity because I think we have heard about this every year and I would like to hear about it once more.


John Watson MacNaught: Perhaps I could refer the hon. gentleman to an article which was published in the Trade News of May 1954 and if the hon. gentleman has not got a copy I will see that he gets one.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you very much.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I notice there has been a substantial increase in this item and I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could explain in what way the activities of this particular enterprise are going to be augmented.


John Watson MacNaught: The federal government and the Ontario provincial government last year established a great lakes fisheries research committee to carry on and expand fisheries research in the Canadian waters of the great lakes, and various experiments are being carried out there, especially on lake Superior. The lampreys have now penetrated as far as lake Superior and experiments will be carried out in the rivers leading in from the Canadian side of lake Superior.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the parliamentary assistant mean that because of the entry of the lampreys into lake Superior that the amount for the investigation has been trebled for this year?


John Watson MacNaught: Well, it is more than an investigation. Electrical devices are to be used to see if they will be effective in killing

the lampreys and they are also experimenting with certain types of poison. It has really got beyond the experimental stage now.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure the parliamentary assistant will agree with me that it would arouse anyone's curiosity when the amount is trebled even if we were to admit that this money was being spent for a good purpose. But we would still like to have an explanation of the increase from $50,000 to $150,000 and we would like to know just what the department proposes to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose the fact that the Ontario government is also willing to spend more on this project will reassure the hon. lady.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is this a case of matching expenditure?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, the Ontario government pays an amount equal to that paid by the federal government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That seems to me to be an extraordinary argument. For all we know the Ontario government may be using exactly the same argument to justify their item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They probably are.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely the minister can think of a better answer than that.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Could the parliamentary assistant give us an idea of how many personnel are involved in these experiments?


John Watson MacNaught: I am afraid I cannot give that information to the hon. gentleman. Day labourers are used in these electrical and other installations and we have no record here of how many day labourers will be involved in the carrying out of these installations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could tell us how many personnel there were supervising these installations or whatever they were.


John Watson MacNaught: I am told that the main part of the supervision is being done by officials of the government of Ontario, and that one official from our department is acting as liaison between the federal Department of Fisheries and the Ontario government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, Mr. Chairman; but how many officials are there involved altogether? What I mean is this: If the federal government is putting up all this money, albeit that it is the Ontario government that is being assisted in the matter, surely we should have some idea as to how many persons are involved, what they are doing or how many lampreys are being killed.
Supply-Fisheries


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be glad to have the Ontario government asked to give us that information. I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that my rather flippant answer was not meant to be taken seriously.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We do not take it
seriously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to see that inquiries are made. The officials have not that information here now. I shall be glad to see that inquiries are made of the Ontario government, if the officials have not the information in their possession, and to make it available to my hon. friend.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: From that answer I take it that while this rather substantial amount of money is to be paid out, no one seems to know exactly what it is for.


An hon. Member:: Are you against it?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


John Watson MacNaught: Before the item carries I should like to deal with one matter that has been raised. The hon. member for St. Paul's asked me if I would be kind enough to get him a list of the members of the board. The list has now come into my hands and I shall read it or put it on the record.


An hon. Member:: Put it on the record.


John Watson MacNaught: The chairman is Dr. J. L.
Kask, who is full-time chairman; Dr. J. H. L. Johnstone, Dalhousie University, Halifax; Dr. Raymond Gushue, St. John's, Newfoundland; Mr. O. F. Mackenzie, Halifax; Mr. J. H. MacKichan, Halifax; Dr. C. W. Argue, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton; Dr. Lucien Piche, University of Montreal; Dr. P. E. Gagnon, Laval University; Dr. A. T. M. Cameron, McGill University; Dr. G. B. Reed, Queen's University; Dr. J. R. Dymond, University of Toronto; Dean I. M. Fraser, University of Saskatchewan; Dr. W. A. Clemens, University of British Columbia; Mr. R. E. Walker, Vancouver, B.C.; Mr. K. F. Harding, Prince Rupert, B.C., and Dr. A. L. Pritchard of the Department of Fisheries.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman; I do not think we should leave the matter as it is.
I do not think it is fair to the minister that his flippant answer should be left as it is.
I think that either this $165,000 item should be explained or that it should stand until it can be explained.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall endeavour to give as serious an explanation as can possibly be

Supply-Fisheries
given of this item. I have never seen a lamprey. I am reminded by a very distinguished member of this committee that King John died of a surfeit of these animals. I hope the committee this evening is not going to suffer the same fate. As I understand it, the lamprey is an extremely serious pest in the great lakes where a large number of very worthy citizens of this province-and many of them in the county in which I happened to be born, Norfolk county-make their living. I understand that the Ontario government and the federal government became seriously concerned about this matter and that we were able to arrange some kind of co-operation with the Americans. I am not sure of what the details of this arrangement were; after all, this is not my department. I understand that we did reach an arrangement in co-operation with the Ontario government which, as hon. members know, administers the fisheries in that province, whereby we were to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of this scheme.
Perhaps this is not the right kind of political statement to make, but our experience in most of our dealings with the Ontario government has been that when they go into a project of this sort with us, they do so seriously and co-operate well. I am quite convinced that this is being done well. If there are any specific details that I cannot give or that the hon. member for St. Paul's cannot give-after all, he has had perhaps more to do with starting this project than anyone else in the committee-I shall be glad to make an effort to get them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to make one thing quite clear. I have in the past spent some time on commercial fishing boats on the great lakes; that is, on boats out of Port Dover in the riding from which the Secretary of State comes, his birthplace. I realize that this is a great problem and an important one. I have some firsthand personal knowledge of it. But despite the fact that I have no doubt or that, in fact, I have every confidence that everything the Ontario government does in this regard is excellent, nevertheless as a matter of principle I do not think it is exactly wise that the federal government-although with the best of intentions-should vote large sums of money like this without knowing exactly what they are for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
155. To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, $85,875.
William McLean Hamilton: Can we get, for the year ended March 31, 1954, information as to how

much was spent actually in support of fisheries prices under this act and perhaps even a forecast of the amount it might be in the coming year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry, it will take a second to find the figures.


John Watson MacNaught: That information was
given in a reply to a question asked by the junior member for Halifax and put on Hansard last week. I have a copy of it here. The answer to the question asked by the hon. member was: purchase 1949 production, $82,000; deficiency payments on Labrador, 1950 production, $446,000. In 1953 the government purchased approximately $950,000 worth of salted codfish for relief purposes in Greece and Korea. Purchases from Newfoundland amounted to $500,000, from Nova Scotia, $190,000, New Brunswick, $10,000, and Quebec, $250,000. The amounts were based on the carry-over of the 1952 fish in each province. Deficiency payments were also authorized in Quebec and Newfoundland; the Quebec payments amounting to $37,000, and the Newfoundland payments, which have not yet been made up, will approximate $600,000.


William McLean Hamilton: That is for the period ending when?


John Watson MacNaught: March 31, 1954.


William McLean Hamilton: Have you comparative
figures for the period ending March 31, 1953? In other words, if we add the two figures for deficiency payments together we get approximately $637,000, $600,000 in Newfoundland and some $37,000 in Quebec. Could we have the comparative figures for the preceding year?


John Watson MacNaught: On page 10 of the sixth annual report I find that the payment for the Newfoundland shore caught salted codfish support program amounted to $37,000.


William McLean Hamilton: Is the parliamentary assistant quite sure that the two figures he has given us are strictly comparable? He says that in the year ended March 31, 1953 the support program entailed an expenditure of approximately $38,000. I do not think it was quite that much. I think it was about $36,500 and they issued 1,307 cheques. Can he tell us whether the figures he has given are strictly comparable with the figures for the year ended March 31, 1954 totalling over $600,000?


John Watson MacNaught: I am informed by my
officials it is not now possible because there was considerable overlapping between the two periods. The accounts for the 1953-1954

period moreover are not completely closed yet. There are still some outstanding.


William McLean Hamilton: The point I am concerned about is whether these payments are being made on the same basis. Are these estimates, when they are finally resolved, going to show that they were made for exactly the same reason? Has there been any change in the reason? The parliamentary assistant will notice that he has told us that payments in the year ended March 31, 1954 are almost twenty times as great as they were in the year ended March 31, 1953.


John Watson MacNaught: The very obvious answer to that is that the need for deficiency payments last year was much greater than it was in the preceding year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
762. To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1953-54, $9,000,000.
Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation of this item?


Maurice Bourget: This item is an amount of $9 million. Hon. members will recall that the National Housing Act, 1954, by section 36, subsection 5, established a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be credited out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $50 million. From this fund the corporation borrows the money required to finance federal-provincial projects during the current year. This item is to re-establish the amount of $50 million that appeared at the beginning of the year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does that mean that
expenditures out of this fund are being reimbursed from the consolidated revenue fund? In other words, you have a reserve there of $50 million. Is that correct?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: And the yearly expenditures are to be reimbursed by this vote out of the consolidated revenue fund.


Maurice Bourget: This is a special account that has been established in the amount of $50 million. Suppose in a year we spend $8 million, $9 million or $10 million. Next year we have to reimburse that special account up to the amount of $50 million at which it was originally established.
Supply-Public Works


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In other words, it is a type of revolving fund in reverse.


Maurice Bourget: Of this kind, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
762. To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection one of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans, for the acquisition of land for housing projects, and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, for sale or rental-further amount required, including authority for housing at Pembroke, Ontario, for the rental or sale to employees of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $1,110,000.
Howard Charles Green: Would the parliamentary assistant explain this item?


Maurice Bourget: This item is to provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans, for the acquisition of land for housing projects, and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, for sale or rental. This further amount is required, including authority for housing at Pembroke, Ontario, for the rental or sale to employees of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. That is the reason why this further amount of $1,110,000 is required.


Howard Charles Green: Is this development at Pembroke something new? Does it mean that no more people can be accommodated at Deep River?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited feels that they have to stop further housing expenditure at Deep River, and they think it would be better to construct new housing at Pembroke. That is the reason why this item is for housing at Pembroke.


Howard Charles Green: Is this a new development? Apparently they are now going to start a second Deep River settlement at Pembroke in effect. Is that the idea?


Maurice Bourget: No, it is just to erect fifty new houses at Pembroke so there will not be further housing at Deep River.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we turn to the Department of Public Works supplementary item 407?


Maurice Bourget: Before we leave Central Mortgage, could we pass items 721 and 722?
722. To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence-further

Supply-Public Works amount required, including authority for such expenses incurred in connection with rental housing for the Department of National Defence, $750,000.


Howard Charles Green: This appears to be in connection with the construction of married quarters, schools and so on for the Department of National Defence. Why is that amount not charged to the vote of the Department of National Defence?


Maurice Bourget: Because it is an amount, Mr. Chairman, to be voted to the organization that is spending the money.


Howard Charles Green: This only covers expenses of Central Mortgage as distinguished from the cost of construction, is that right?


Maurice Bourget: It is administrative expenses to carry out the work.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any system of charging such expenses to the Department of National Defence? I do not see why Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be charged with that figure?


Maurice Bourget: It is because the Auditor General believes it is proper to vote the money to the organization that is spending it.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact, then, that the Department of National Defence, when it shows a figure of so many dollars as the cost of putting up these works, is not showing a full cost because these administrative charges are charged against Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Maurice Bourget: What my hon. friend has just said is correct. It is because the Auditor General asked that these expenditures be voted to Central Mortgage and not be capitalized.


Daniel Roland Michener: The amount is quite substantial as a fee for supervision of construction of housing for the Department of National Defence. I wonder if we could have the total cost of construction which was accomplished by this amount of supervision, so we could relate the two together. What is the amount that has already been charged to the Department of National Defence for actual construction, and where are the projects?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that it will be about $37 million.


Daniel Roland Michener: Where were those houses built?


Maurice Bourget: I have here a breakdown of that item. We have 1,327 units for the army at a cost of $17,162,000. We also have 7 schools at a cost of $1,982,000. Then, for the navy, we have married quarters, 131 units at a cost of $1,458,000 and 3 schools at a cost 

of $740,000. For the air force we have married quarters, 456 units at a total cost of $6,596,000, and 3 schools at a cost of $380,000.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is all in Canada?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, Mr. Chairman, all in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have got now a large figure for the amount spent on the construction of these works. But this item of $750,000 is to be for expenditures incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing in supervising construction. Now, that has got nothing to do, I take it, with bricks, mortar or anything that goes into a building. What are the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage? Are those personal services, such as an architect rendered, or what? I think we should know more as to how this amount is arrived at.


Maurice Bourget: This amount is to pay the
corporation for the amount of salaries of persons engaged in the work of supervision, plus 50 per cent of such salaries to cover overhead, travelling expenses, telephone, group insurance and so forth.


Howard Charles Green: There was a vote in the ordinary estimates under item 406 of $700,000 for this purpose. Does that mean there is a total of $1,450,000 for this purpose?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is right, because since the main estimates were presented additional projects have been given to Central Mortgage. Those are projects additional to the ones covered in vote 406.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is roughly a 5 per cent charge. I am interested in knowing how Central Mortgage financed this item in advance of the voting of the funds by parliament. We are asked here to repay a cost that has already been paid or incurred, and I would be interested in the mechanics of it, so as to explain the Auditor General's viewpoint.


Maurice Bourget: This money has not been spent yet. It will be spent.


Daniel Roland Michener: The houses have been built,
I understand, and the work done.


Maurice Bourget: The work is not done.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is for construction to be done in the future?


Maurice Bourget: In the future.


Mr. Palleil:: Does the amount include architectural work for these buildings?


Maurice Bourget: No, Mr. Chairman, only to the extent that Central Mortgage would provide the house plans.


John Cameron Pallett: Central Mortgage provides the plans for these schools, and you have authorized the construction of so many schools. Does the parliamentary assistant know how many rooms there are in each school? There are seven schools in one item at a cost of $1,982,000, and that breaks down to about $280,000 per school; there are three schools at $740,000, which breaks down to about $250,000 per school; and three at $380,000 which breaks down to about $126,000 per school.


Maurice Bourget: The number of rooms per school range from six, 8, 10, 12 to 14. So far as the price per room is concerned, it is about $22,000.
Mr. Pallet!: Does the parliamentary assistant know that the cost per schoolroom in Ontario is approximately $12,000 or $13,000?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No, it is not, and has not been for years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to be clear on this. I refer to item 406 in the estimates covering an amount of $700,000 to provide for expenditures incurred by Central Mortgage in connection with the supervision of the construction of married quarters. Now, then, item 721 is apparently for exactly the same purpose. It seems odd that an entirely duplicate set of buildings is covered by item 721. What is this new project? May we have some details; I am not clear about it at the moment.


Maurice Bourget: I have a list here of the additions made since the main estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this in addition to the project which was in hand at the time of the main estimates?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, this is in addition. Those projects were presented to Central Mortgage after the main estimates were tabled.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is the total of the two $37 million? What is the additional amount.


Maurice Bourget: I am told the total of the two will be around $60 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-further amount required-
707. Ottawa, $2,050,000.
Howard Charles Green: Why was it necessary to have this amount in the supplementary estimates? It is two-thirds of the total vote. The Department of Public Works is supposed to have the new look, and we understood that they had everything up to date.


George James McIlraith: They have.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We want evidence of it.
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: They are asking for an additional $2 million for public buildings in Ottawa, in the supplementary estimates.


Maurice Bourget: I am told $1 million is for the
seminary and $1 million for property on Wellington street which was expropriated last year.


Howard Charles Green: Why was not at least some of this amount indicated in the main estimates?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that at that time the decision had not been taken. That is why it had to be brought in with the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering branch: graving docks-
711. Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs for the period January 1 to March 31, 1954, $39,000.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you would want me to ask a question on this, because it has to do with the Prince Rupert dry dock. Apparently this item is to cover operating loss and essential repairs for the period January 1 to March 31, 1954. What is going to happen from then on? It is of the utmost importance that this dry dock be continued in operation at Prince Rupert, and I am wondering what provision has been made to bring about that result.


Maurice Bourget: The only information I have is the statement made by the Minister of Transport at the time to the effect that the Canadian National Railways has advertised to sell the dry dock. So far as this department is concerned, I do not think we have any more information regarding it, except that the sale has been postponed until the end of September. It has been delayed six months.


Howard Charles Green: There is no provision in the estimates for operating the dry dock after March 31 of this year?


Maurice Bourget: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I notice that the Minister of Transport is in the house at the moment. If the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works is not aware of what provision has been made for continuing the operating of the dry dock, perhaps the Minister of Transport could give us the information.


Lionel Chevrier: All I can say is that my recollection is that the operation of the dry dock is to continue for another period of six months; and thereafter the president of the Canadian National Railways has made the statement to the effect that one of the officers of the railways in Vancouver-I believe it is Mr. Allen-has been placed in charge of the
6774	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
disposal of the dry dock. Meantime it may be possible to find a purchaser or to make some arrangement with persons who might be interested either in Prince Rupert or in Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean that if no purchaser can be found by September 30 this year this dry dock is to cease operating?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not say that. I think if that is the case we will have to take another look at the situation as it is then.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any vote in the estimates which could be used to continue the operation of the dry dock?


Lionel Chevrier: Not in the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: And apparently there is nothing in the Department of Public Works, because this vote we are considering is only for the period up to March 31, 1954.


Lionel Chevrier: As I said earlier my understanding is that there is provision for continuance until the end of the six months period.


Howard Charles Green: I hope some arrangement will be made so that the dry dock can be kept in operation. It would be a disaster of the first magnitude if it were not to be continued. The whole of that northern country is developing, with the opening up of Kiti-mat and the possible smelter on the Taku river in northwestern British Columbia, and it would really be a great tragedy if the dry dock at Prince Rupert is to be out of operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-
712. Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $59,000.
Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Public Works made a statement on May 12 which is to be found at page 4645 of Hansard in which he said the government was going to contribute a certain amount toward the construction of the Marpole bridge across the north arm of the Fraser river. There does not seem to be any vote in the supplementary estimates to cover that assistance. In what way will it be provided?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that we have no agreement thus far with the province. If I remember correctly, when the main estimates were being considered the minister said that he would consider the question but he made no commitment. If I recall correctly he did make an offer. I think that offer was made to British Columbia to the amount of $400,000.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: But no acceptance has been received from the province.


Howard Charles Green: The minister made a commitment of $400,000 on May 12?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I notice the following in the Vancouver Province of June 23:
Public Works Minister P. A. Gaglardi today said the provincial government will build toll stations on the planned $10,000,000 Oak street bridge "if Ottawa and Vancouver refuse to pay their one-third shares."
He said tenders for the Marpole bridge replacement will be called in November and construction will definitely start next spring.
"The bridge will take two years to build, so the federal government and Vancouver will have that time to make up their minds how far they'll go to help." said Mr. Gaglardi.
"Our one-third share is available and we'll start building with it. Toll stations are not being drawn into the working plans, but they can be added if we find we will need them to get the other shares. But, the people of Vancouver and Richmond have suffered from that pile of junk (his view of Marpole bridge) too long now."
Have any steps been taken by the Department of Public Works since this definite commitment of May 12 of this year to have this whole position reviewed with the provincial government and the city of Vancouver? The commitment seemed to be definite enough. I do not see how the government can back out of it, although I believe that Vancouver electors turned down the plebiscite which would have permitted the sale of the airport. I have been told that, I am not sure it is actually so, but that surely has nothing to do with the question of replacing this bridge. I would urge that the department have a further look at this situation and get in consultation with the provincial government about it. Each government should pay one-third of the cost. There is no sense in just putting on a few repairs to the old bridge, which is about all that can be done, if the total amount involved is only to be $1,200,000. I believe the dominion government will have to pay one-third of the total cost of the new bridge, and should do so because it serves the airport primarily.


Maurice Bourget: I think the amount of $400,000 has been offered to the province to build the Marpole bridge, but I am informed that they want to build the bridge at Oak street.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Maurice Bourget: So far, I do not think-


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean then that unless the provincial government agrees to this ridiculous scheme of simply putting a lift

on the old Marpole bridge, the dominion government will not make any contribution at all?


Maurice Bourget: I am told that they will
probably make the same offer for the Oak street bridge.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion government will pay $400,000 on a new bridge on Oak street?


Maurice Bourget: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: I hope they will have a further look at it because they are going to have to pay more than that.


Maurice Bourget: I am not making any comment on that statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
718. Ontario, $435,900.
Daniel Roland Michener: This item appears to supplement vote 392 in the main estimates which provides $6,573,000 for works there listed. I should like if possible to have the particulars of the new expenditure proposed in Ontario additional to those in the main estimates and which I see are listed here for $435,900.


Maurice Bourget: They are all set out on page 30, Hamilton, Moosonee, Oshawa, Port Stanley, Sombra.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Has any part of this
amount which is listed for Hamilton to do with the Burlington bridge canal?


Maurice Bourget: No.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easi):: Can the
parliamentary assistant give details of the Port Stanley, Ontario, estimate.


Maurice Bourget: This amount is to provide for repairs to a section of the west pier which is considered too dangerous to be used by the public.


Daniel Roland Michener: The wharf at Moosonee to cost $75,000 is supposed to serve the hospital on the island? Has the parliamentary assistant information here as to where that wharf is to be built, whether on the mainland or on
25, 1954	6775
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the island. If on the island, on which side of the island is it supposed to be?


Maurice Bourget: I am told it is to be built on the mainland and it is not only for the hospital but also for the use of the trading companies and settlers.


Daniel Roland Michener: It is on the mainland?


Maurice Bourget: It is on the mainland.


Daniel Roland Michener: And the whole $75,000 is to be spent on the mainland at Moosonee?


Maurice Bourget: Yes, it is for the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
56. Departmental administration, $340,230.
William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will find the vote on page 9 of the blue book and the details on page 128.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I presume that the minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I presume the minister will follow the usual practice, which he himself has pointed out is the practice, of making a statement on the first item on the operations of his department.


Walter Edward Harris: As the hon. member says, it has been my custom to place before the committee on the first item some of the details of the department during the past year, especially when we have unfortunately not had an opportunity to discuss the department this session except briefly on the citizenship amendment. It has been my custom to mention in some general way the extent and the nature of immigration during the past calendar year, and to table with the consent of the committee the return for that year. I would ask therefore, Mr. Chairman, that I be permitted to table a comparison of the immigration for 1952 and 1953.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand the minister wishes this table placed on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: 
William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.*


Walter Edward Harris: To mention just a few figures about Indian affairs. Last year we built 972 new houses for the accommodation of Indians on reserves in accordance with our policy of continuing to build suitable housing every year. We have had a noteworthy increase in the attendance of Indian children at the schools, and the number as of March 31 was 31,555. This is an increase of 2,756 or nearly 10 per cent over last year, and the number of Indians now attending non-Indian schools stands at 3,381, an increase of 531 over the figure reported a year ago.


Major James William Coldwell: I wonder if the minister
could give a breakdown of the school children in their respective grades so that we may learn how many are at high school, and so on. The minister might give that breakdown later on.


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly. I could not leave the subject of education, Mr. Chairman, without mentioning a recent agreement we reached with the corporation of the city of Sarnia which, I hope, will serve as an example on other occasions. As hon. members are aware, the reserve is in and about Sarnia and the population is closely mixed and allied with the people of that community. We found that the school we had there was somewhat old and required repairs and we
See appendix at pages 6784-86.

negotiated an agreement with the corporation, the effect of which will be that we will pay for the construction of three classrooms as part of another school being built by the board of education of that city. We will pay a per capita annual grant to the board of education so that from now on there will be no separate Indian school in and about Sarnia and the Indian children will be free to attend not only that particular school but any of the schools in that city. I suggest that is an ideal situation and I think the plan can be worked out successfully. There may be some difficulties to overcome but I hope that will be the end of our functions with respect to education on that reserve.
I should also mention, Mr. Chairman, a very useful committee which was formed in the Ontario legislature and which visited Indians in this province throughout the past 12 months. The province was naturally concerned with the condition of those early settlers in Ontario and wished to learn for their own purposes about the economic conditions, educational standards, health standards and the like. The present government asked the legislature to appoint a committee and that was done. They toured the province in a manner which I have not found possible yet since I took over this office. I believe they visited every reserve and interviewed large numbers of chiefs and principal men. They have reported on those aspects of Indian life, not only within their own competence but within the competence of this government and, I might say, at our request and at their own desire.
We supplied them with our own good offices in every place and made whatever arrangements we could to be of assistance to them. 1 am grateful to them for the commendation they gave this department and its officials in their report for their attendance upon them and the good work which is being done in many reserves. The report suggests, without in any way transgressing on the separate fields of provincial and dominion activity, that it would be useful if we would meet with them to consider the welfare of our Indian people since, after all, it is agreed they are part of our community and every effort should be made by every level of government to assist in that work. While I have not been able to follow up that suggestion as yet, I propose to approach the provincial government having in mind the suggestion in their report and to have the officials of this department confer with them on the questions they have raised.
The citizenship branch has little to do except the registration of naturalization and
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the maintaining of records. But as I have indicated on other occasions in the house, their work is increasing and will increase noticeably during the next two or three years. The first substantial numbers of those who came to our shores since the war came in 1947, so that a considerable number of them are now here more than the required five years and are, according to the statistics, beginning to apply for citizenship. A few figures, I think, to show that would indicate what I mean. In 1952-53 there were about
15,000	declarations of intention filed while last year the figure had increased to 25,400. We anticipate that that increase in applications will continue for at least another year or two until it levels off.
With respect to the other branches of government for which I have some responsibility, namely, the national gallery and the national film board, I do not propose to say anything at this point because we had some debate about the national gallery on the supplementary estimates and we had a lengthy debate on the national film board in February. I would hope that we could dispose of these particular branches by questions and answers when we come to them. Of course that applies to all the other branches which I have already mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee appreciates the minister's review of the work of his department. Since we have had a fairly good day today I hope the committee might feel that it was time to adjourn now so that tomorrow we could give to that department our undivided attention and that attention which it deserves.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that there is not unanimous consent to proceed? Shall I rise, report the resolutions and request leave to sit again?
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: For tomorrow I gather from the hon. member for Kamloops that we shall give to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that careful attention that it deserves and that when that business is completed we shall take the appropriation bills and any other matters that might arise

Business of the House
incidentally. I would appreciate it if some time we could be given some indication .about the probable closing hour.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is 11.30, this house stands adjourned-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten thirty.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is 10.30, this house [DOT]stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the forenoon.


George Alexander Drew: Ten o'clock?


Walter Edward Harris: Did you say something? Did you say ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I regret-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bring the mace back.


Walter Edward Harris: I heard someone saying "ten o'clock", Mr. Speaker, and my first thought was that they were referring to ten o'clock tonight. But if that was an effort to ask the house leader that we should meet at ten o'clock tomorrow morning instead of eleven, I would ask the house to consider that suggestion. I personally would recommend it. If other hon. members would like to have : it that way, I am sure we could use that hour to some advantage.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think actually the situation was that His Honour had inadvertently said "as it is 11.30" when it is actually 10.30, and that is the way "ten o'clock" was used. I wonder whether perhaps a compromise could be suggested about ten o'clock tomorrow. One can do only so much. I am anxious that we should be in a position to discuss intelligently and vigorously the minister's department.


Major James William Coldwell: The only objection I have to the suggestion, I may say-and I am willing to come at ten o'clock tomorrow morning- is that some members have already gone home. They may not know that the house is meeting at ten o'clock or 10.30 tomorrow morning. I do not think it is fair to the members who left at ten o'clock, which is our time of adjournment, that we should meet earlier and they should not know that we are meeting. Some of them may have a question that they would like to ask on the last morning on the orders of the day. I do not know of any such questions and I do not know of any such persons. But, out of courtesy to the members who have left, I think the small number in the house tonight should not decide to meet early and thus deprive them of any right they may have tomorrow. That is my only objection to the suggestion.
[Mr Harris.!


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the C.C.F. party probably is on good grounds, generally speaking. But we have a rule around here that says that hon. members should stay and do the business of the house. While I am sure we would not want anyone to feel that having waited until tomorrow to ask a question, he did not have an opportunity to ask it. I would think that everyone would realize that there are enough members of all parties present to take care of any matters that might arise. I would suggest that we adopt the suggestion as to 10.30 and count on the hon. member for Kamloops to keep us going until all members arrive at eleven o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: I have expressed my view. I am not going to press it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Might it not be possible, by consent, to have orders of the day called at eleven o'clock or a little bit later, when all danger will have entirely disappeared?


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to add much to what has been said. I quite appreciate what has been said by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I think perhaps if we sat at ten o'clock there might be sufficient room for that opportunity to be denied. If we sit at 10.30 I think it is likely that the orders of the day might still be before us when those who did not otherwise know we were meeting earlier would have arrived. I think it would expedite the work of the house if we meet that extra half hour earlier.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that I was not pressing my view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are taking up nearly half an hour now.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is 10.30, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10.30 in the forenoon.
On motion of Mr. Harris the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Administration services-
210.	Departmental administration, $470,422. Explosives Act-
211.	Explosives Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $97,988.
Mines branch-*
212.	Mines branch administration, $81,158.

Supply
Mineral resources investigations-
213.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,322,462.
214.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $203,000.
Investigations of radioactive ores-
215.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $308,720.
216.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $41,000.
217.	To provide for payments to McGill University in connection with the development of a coal-fired gas turbine, $100,000.
Geological survey of Canada-
Geological surveys-
218.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including the expenses of the national advisory committee on research in the geological sciences, an amount of $1,500 for Canada's share of the cost of the committee on mineral resources and geology, London, England, and an amount of $25,000 for grants in aid of geological research in Canadian universities, $2,235,425.
219.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $104,000.
Surveys and mapping branch-
220.	Surveys and mapping branch administration, $53,012.
Topographical surveys, including expenses of the Canadian board on geographical names-
221.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,580,845.
222.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $94,000.
Canadian hydrographic service-
223.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's annual contribution of $5,300 to the international hydrographic bureau, $2,617,873.
224.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $1,612,945.
Geodetic survey of Canada-
225.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $527,613.
226.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $17,400.
227.	International boundary commission, $69,481.
228.	Legal surveys and aeronautical charts, including a grant of $350 to the Canadian institute of surveying and photogrammetry and the expenses of the board of examiners for dominion land surveyors as provided by the Canada Land Surveys Act, $686,033.
Map compilation and reproduction-
229.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $834,889.
230.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $71,300.
Geographical branch-
231.	Geographical branch-administration, operation and maintenance, including a grant of $250 to the Canadian association of geographers, $283,385.
Dominion observatories-
Dominion observatory, Ottawa and field stations-
232.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including membership fee of $500 to the international astronomical union, $471,621.
233.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $89,800.
234.	Dominion astrophysical observatory, Victoria, B.C., $120,353.
General-
235.	Payments to Royal Canadian Air Force and commercial companies for air photography, and to defray the expenses of and the purchase of equipment by the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, $1,100,000.
236.	Provincial and territorial boundary surveys, $91,000.
Total, department, $32,097,725.
E-Dominion coal board-
237.	Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $114,380.
238.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $9,850,634.
A-Department-
Geological survey of Canada-
Geological surveys-
677.	Administration, operation and maintenance- to provide for an amount of $2,000 for Canada's share of the cost of the committee on mineral resources and geology, London, England, to be charged to funds appropriated under vote 218 of the main estimates, 1954-55, in lieu of the amount of $1,500 provided by that vote, $1.
678.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment -further amount required, $13,500.
Surveys and mapping branch-
Topographical surveys-
679.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment-further amount required, $75,000.
Map compilation and reproduction-
680.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $31,800.
Geographical branch-
631. Geographical branch-administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $7,000.
Dominion observatories-
Dominion observatory, Ottawa and field stations- 682. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $15,000.

[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
30.	Marketing service administration, $287,343.
31.	Agricultural economics, $630,153.
44.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,899,245.
45.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,077,747.
46.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $361,500.
47.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $143,000.
48.	Land protection and reclamation:	clearing
and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $795,000.
49.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,097,180.
50.	Assiniboine river-dyking and cut-off, $100,000.
51.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, $104,615.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Loans, investments and advances-
533. To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of financing the purchase of stores for use in the construction, maintenance and operation of projects under the direction of the maritime marshland rehabilitation administration; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $150,000.
Science service-
Science service administration-
635.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $224,400.
Entomology-
636.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $10,700.
Forest biology-
637.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $13,000.
Production service-
Animal pathology-
633. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $26,700.
639.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $84,716.
Health of animals-
640.	To provide for payment of compensation to owners of animals or poultry affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the above act and regulations made thereunder, and to provide for payment to owners'*for loss of turkeys while in quarantine, all as detailed in the estimates, $19,684.
641.	Live stock and poultry-further amount required, $115,400.
Marketing service-
642.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $603,678.
Special-
643.	To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories- further amount required, $150,000.
644.	To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for assistance to farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for crop losses that occurred between the 1st day of August, 1950, and the 14th day of May, 1953, in respect of which there is no authority under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to make awards, $17,000.
645.	To provide, in accordance with such order as the governor in council may make in the circumstances, for the purchase of an annuity under the Government Annuities Act for and on behalf of Mr. M. S. J. MeMurachy, discoverer of the parent strain from #hich Selkirk wheat was developed, and his wife, Mrs. M. J. B. MeMurachy, or in the event that one spouse predecease the other before the annuity contract is entered into, to provide for the purchase of an annuity for and on behalf of the surviving spouse, $10,000.
646.	To provide for a contribution to the world championship plowing organization to help defray the cost of the world matches held in Canada in 1953, $2,500.

[Stage Direction]
Field services-
Inspection branch-
137.	Operation and maintenance, $1,031,000.
138.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $15,400.
Fish culture and development branch-
139.	Operation and maintenance, $733,515.
140. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $223,800.
141.	Consumer branch, $75,600.
142.	Fishermen's indemnity and loan plan-administrative expenses, $209,565.
143.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $40,000.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
144.	Headquarters administration, $131,090.
145.	Operation and maintenance, $1,995,939.
146. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $220,020.
147.	To provide for federal share of administrative expenses of the great lakes fisheries research committee established jointly with the province of Ontario; and to provide for a program designed to eliminate lampreys in the great lakes, $165,000.
International commissions-
148.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated March 2, 1953, between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the north Pacific halibut fisheries, $77,900.
149.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $155,000.
150.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international whaling commission, appointed pursuant to the international convention for the regulation of whaling, dated at Washington, December 2, 1946, $2,500.
151.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries appointed pursuant to international conventions for the investigation, protection and conservation of the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean, dated at Washington, February 8, 1949, $12,500.
152.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international north Pacific fisheries commission appointed pursuant to the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, dated May 9, 1952, $15,000.
Special-
153.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service, $293,890.
154.	To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $80,000.
155.	To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, $85,875.
156.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
157.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the regulations established by the governor in council, $30,000.

Loans, investments and advances-
536. To authorize and provide for the establishment of one or more special accounts in the consolidated revenue fund, replacing those established by vote 766, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, for the purposes of a plan to be known as the fishermen's indemnity and loan plan, to be administered in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, for the purpose of assisting fishermen to meet abnormal capital losses; and to authorize payment from the accounts in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with the regulations, of indemnities and loans, the accounts to be credited with all amounts received by way of premiums, recoveries and repayments, and with advances to the said accounts in accordance with the regulations, such advances not at any time to exceed $100,000.
Field services-
Protection branch-
657.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $75,000.
Inspection branch-
658.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further .amount required, $2,000.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
659.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $15,000.
International commissions-
660.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of
the international north Pacific fisheries commission appointed pursuant to the international convention for the high seas	fisheries of the	north Pacific
ocean, dated May 9, 1952-further amount required, $7,500.
Special-
661.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service-further amount required. $35,000.
662.	To provide for a contribution towards the cost of construction of a public aauarium at Vancouver, British Columbia, in accordance with an agreement to be entered into by the Minister of Fisheries with the approval of the governor in council whereby adeauate facilities are to be made available to the fisheries research board, the total cost to be borne in eaual shares by the government of Canada, the government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver, the contribution of the government of Canada not to exceed. $100,000.
663.	Amount required to recoup the accounts of the fishermen's indemnity and loan plan, established by vote 536, main estimates, 1954-55, for the cost of administrative expenses incurred during the fiscal year 1953-54, $95,640.

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
704.	Newfoundland, $200,000.
705.	New Brunswick, $60,000.
706.	Quebec, $1.
Supply
707.	Ottawa, $2,050,000.
708.	Ontario (other than Ottawa). $690,000.
709.	Saskatchewan, $1.
710.	British Columbia, $1.
Engineering branch-
Graving docks-
711.	Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs for the period January 1 to March 31, 1954, $39,000.
Roads and bridges-
712.	Maintenance and operation-further amount required, $59,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-further amounts required-
713.	Newfoundland, $1.
714.	Nova Scotia. $700,000.
715.	Prince Edward Island, $250,000.
716.	New Brunswick, $45,000.
717.	Quebec, $243,100.
718.	Ontario, $435,900.
719.	British Columbia and Yukon, $326,000. General-
720.	To provide for balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provision is made in the fiscal year 1954-55-further amount required, $200,000.
721.	To provide for the expenses incurred by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence-further amount required, including authority for such expenses incurred in connection with rental housing for the Department of National Defence, $750,000.
722.	To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account during the fiscal year 1953-54, in respect of preliminary expenses incurred under enabling agreements with provincial governments, $585.
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
761.	To provide for the restoration of the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by section 36 of the National Housing Act, 1954, by the amount paid out of the special account in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces during the fiscal year 1953-54, $9,000,000.
762.	To provide for advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection one of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing projects for veterans, for the acquisition of land for housing projects, and for housing projects at Gander, Newfoundland, for sale or rental-further amount required, including authority for housing at Pembroke, Ontario, for the rental or sale to employees of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $1,110,000.
6784
[Stage Direction]
Conference on Indian Act

[Stage Direction]
Summary of the proceedings of a conference with representative Indians held in
Ottawa October 26-28, 1953.
(1)	On February 28, March 1, 2 and 3, 1951, a conference was held with representative Indians and officers of Indian associations from all those regions of Canada where there is an Indian population except the Northwest Territories. The purpose of that conference was to discuss the provisions of Bill 79 to revise the Indian Act, and a summary of the proceedings of that conference appears as appendix B, House of Commons debates, March 16, 1951.
(2)	On October 26, 27 and 28, 1953, a second conference was held in Ottawa with representative Indians and officers of Indian associations, whose names are set out in schedule "A" hereto. In addition to the representatives, the minister, deputy minister and headquarters officials of the Indian affairs branch, the conference was attended by the Indian commissioner for British Columbia and all regional supervisors from the provinces.
(3)	As in 1951, the purpose of this second conference was to discuss the provisions of the Indian Act and as well to suggest amendments to it in the light of experience gained since it came into force September 4, 1951. Much of the discussion was devoted to the administration of the act rather than specific amendments to it. Officials of the Indian affairs branch reported on particular sections of the act which they administer. Following this all sections of the act were considered.
(4)	Upon the conclusion of this phase of the work of the conference there was a general discussion on matters pertaining to the health of the Indian people with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
(5)	It was again evident from the discussion that the problems of Indian communities varied from reserve to reserve and region to region and these differences accounted for the variety of viewpoints expressed towards particular sections of the act. It was the unanimous view of those present, however, that the present act had been beneficial to all Indians.
(6)	As in 1951, all of the representatives were opposed to section 86, which deals with taxation, and also section 112, which provides
for the enfranchisement of bands or individual members thereof after committees of inquiry.
(7)	With respect to section 86, all of the
representatives favoured the exemption contained in subsection (1), but thought that it did not go far enough. It was again asserted that under article, 13 of the terms of union between Canada and the province of British Columbia the Indians of British Columbia were not liable to taxation. Representations were made that the Indians in British Columbia living on reserves on the coast and conducting fishing as their only occupation are denied the benefit of tax exemption although Indians in the interior of the province and elsewhere engaged in grazing cattle on reserves enjoy that exemption. A strong argument was made that the tax exemption should be extended to Indian fishermen whether the owner of a ship or engaged in a joint venture. With respect to subsection (2), which relates to a waiver of exemption from taxation under the Canada Elections Act, it was suggested that consideration be given to allowing the Indians to vote without the necessity of executing a waiver. Two representatives, however, were opposed to forcing the right to vote on the Indians.	*
(8)	With respect to section 9, which provides for the protest of the inclusion, omission, addition or deletion of persons on band lists, three different opinions were expressed. Three representatives said that all persons who were registered on band lists at the time the act came into force should continue to be members and favoured the elimination of this section from the act, and the dropping of all protests. Eleven representatives, however, favoured the section but were of opinion that the time limit for protesting the inclusion of persons on a list should be extended beyond the six-month period provided in this section to give a further opportunity for lodging protests. One representative was in favour of section 9 as it now stands.
(9)	As in 1951 the same three views were again expressed with regard to sections 93-96

dealing with the sale and possession of intoxicants: (1) complete prohibition; (2) retention of the sections in the present act; (3) that provincial liquor laws be made applicable to Indians. Eleven representatives were of opinion that the liquor provisions in the Indian Act should be deleted and that the Indians should become subject to the provincial laws with respect to the sale and possession of intoxicants. Six representatives were in favour of retaining the present sections of the act. Two of these, however, were opposed to any extension of liquor privileges to Indians as provided by section 95 without the Indians being consulted first.
(10)	It was generally felt that the principle of registering illegitimate children set out in section 11 (e) ought to be retained. It was suggested, however, by two representatives, that illegitimate children in certain circumstances should not be allowed to benefit from the funds of the band.
(11)	Although unanimously accepted in principle in 1951, payment of a per capita share of the capital and revenue moneys of a band to persons who become voluntarily enfranchised as provided by section 15 (a) was now objected to by one representative. It was asserted that a woman member of a band could apply for enfranchisement and receive her per capita share and subsequently remarry into the band and be again enfranchised with her husband and obtain still another per capita share. It was stated that the funds of the band should remain intact for the benefit of future generations. The opposite view was taken by other representatives who were of opinion that a member of a band had an inalienable interest in the property of the band and should be entitled to take his per capita share of the moneys when leaving the band. One representative suggested that an Indian woman who marries a non-Indian should have an option of taking a per capita share of the moneys of the band or continue to share in the distribution of annuities, interest moneys and rents as provided in the former act.
(12)	Section 19, which deals with surveys and subdivisions, was opposed by the same representatives as in 1951. They contended that there are certain areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan where the subdivision of reserves is not suitable nor acceptable, and for that reason surveys and subdivisions should only be carried out with the consent of the council of the band or of the band. It was the general feeling of the other representatives that surveys were beneficial and necessary and that this work should be carried out expeditiously.
83276-429J
Conference on Indian Act
(13)	With respect to section 20 there was now no feeling that temporary possession of land led to insecurity as was the case in 1951. On the contrary, it was the feeling of several representatives that the period of temporary possession should be extended from two to five years, and possibly ten years, to find out if the Indian is capable of making proper use of the land. Seven representatives were of opinion that the present two-year period is satisfactory, while six representatives thought that the land should be granted on a temporary basis of five years or more instead of the present two years. It was also suggested by one representative that there should be some provision in the act which would permit cancellation of a certificate of possession in cases where the Indian to whom the land is allotted does not make proper use of it.
(14)	It was recommended by one representative that the provisions of section 39 should be changed to permit a surrender to be assented to by referendum with polls established at convenient places on the reserve.	.
(15)	With respect to section 60, which provides that at the request of a band the governor in council may grant to the band the right to exercise control and management over lands in the reserve as may be deemed advisable, it was suggested by one representative that this provision be amended to provide that the request be made by the council of the band rather than the band. It was mentioned that in the case of a large band it was extremely difficult to get a majority of the voters together to hold a vote to request application of this provision. It was pointed out that at the conference in 1951 when this provision was discussed, it was the general feeling of the representatives that the request should be made by the band, and this view was held this year by all the other representatives.
(16)	With regard to the voting age of band members in band elections set out in section 76, it was the opinion of seven representatives that the age should be the same as that which applies in provincial elections. However, seven other representatives were of opinion that the age should remain at twenty-one as provided in the act.
(17)	Similarly there was a difference of opinion regarding the term of office of chiefs and councillors. It was again felt by a number of representatives that the two-year term of office provided in section 77 was not sufficiently long to enable members of band councils to gain sufficient experience for the
6786	HOUSE OF
Conference on Indian Act most effective management of band affairs. A term of office of three, four and five years was suggested. On the other hand, some representatives felt that the term of office of band councils should be similar to that in effect in municipalities and the two-year term should be retained.
(18)	Section 88 was discussed at some
length but there was no opinion in favour of a change and I was asked, and gave the assurance, that there was no present intention to alter it.	.
(19)	It was suggested by one representative that a peace officer should have a warrant rather than the authority now provided in section 101.
(20)	With respect to section 108, which provides for the voluntary enfranchisement of Indians, one representative objected to the minor unmarried children being enfranchised with their parents. It was considered by this representative that such children should be given the option at age twenty-one of being enfranchised or retaining membership in the band. It was also suggested by this representative that an Indian woman who marries a non-Indian and is subsequently deserted or widowed should be able to return to band membership with the consent of the band council or the band, and that minor unmarried children of an Indian woman who marries a non-Indian should not be automatically enfranchised. Another representative objected to the automatic enfranchisement of an Indian woman who marries a nonIndian because such woman would be deprived of any right to an interest in subsequent sales of land which was given the members of the Indian band and their posterity forever.
(21)	Section 110(2), (3) and (4), which provides for the grant of land to enfranchised Indians was unanimously approved by the representatives in 1951, but was objected to this year by one representative who considered that these provisions should be deleted from the act. This objection was not based on experience as there have been no decisions made under these provisions.
(22)	With respect to section 120, it was recommended by one representative that all schools should be non-denominational except the minimum number of residential schools required to take care of unfortunate children. However, arrangements should be made for religious instruction in such schools by a clergyman of the appropriate faith. Another
[Stage Direction]
representative suggested that the band should determine the denomination of teachers by a majority vote of the electors of the band rather than have the denomination of teachers determined in the manner set out in this section.


[Stage Direction]
Telford Adams, Esq., Sarnia, Ontario, chief, Sarnia band.
George Barker, Esq., Manigotagan, Manitoba, chief, Hollow Water band, and president, Manitoba Indian brotherhood.
Joseph Beauvais, Esq., Caughnawaga, Quebec, chief, Caughnawaga band.
Leonard Bruyere, Esq., Fort Frances, Ontario, councillor, Couchiching band, and representative, grand council treaty No. 3.
Michael Clement, Esq., Restigouche, Quebec, chief, Restigouche band.
Thomas Favel, Esq., Paynton, Saskatchewan, chief, Poundmaker band, and representative, Queen Victoria Treaty Protective Association.
James Gladstone, Esq., Blood Indian reserve, Cardston, Alberta, president, Indian Association of Alberta.
Reverend P. R. Kelly, D.D., Nanaimo, B.C., chairman, legislative committee of native brotherhood of British Columbia.
Stephen Knockwood, Esq., Micmac, Hants county, Nova Scotia, chief, Shubenacadie band.
John Laurie, Esq., Calgary, Alberta, secretary, Indian Association of Alberta.
Munroe Linklater, Esq., Moose Factory, Ontario, chief, Moose Factory band.
Daniel Manuel, Esq., Douglas Lake, British Columbia, chief, Upper Nicola band.
Andrew Pauli, Esq., North Vancouver, British Columbia, president, North American Indian brotherhood.
James Powless, Esq., Ohsweken, Ontario, chief, Six Nations band.
William Scow, Esq., Alert Bay, British Columbia, president, native brotherhood of British Columbia.
John B. Tootoosis, Esq., Cutknife, Saskatchewan, president, union of Saskatchewan Indians.
Andrew Trudeau, Esq., Manitowaning, Ontario, chief, Manitoulin Island unceded band.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, June 26, 1954