1955-05-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the ninth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Second report of standing committee on marine and fisheries.-Mr. Ashbourne.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am now in a position to make a statement about the results of the 1953-54 wheat pool. This pool was closed as at April 29. I had suggested an earlier date but in the opinion of the Canadian wheat board a more satisfactory accounting could be made if the closing of the pool were delayed until after the opening of navigation on the great lakes and on the St. Lawrence. Therefore, the government agreed to the closing date recommended by the wheat board, namely, April 29, 1955.
From the standpoint of a marketing operation, the 1953-54 pool was the most difficult in the post-war history of the wheat board.
In the first place, as hon. members will recall, the 1953 wheat crop was the third in a succession of three bumper crops produced in the prairie provinces. In spite of a very high level of exports and domestic demand in
1951-52 and 1952-53, substantial stocks of wheat remained in elevators on July 31, 1953. Sales from the 1953-54 pool could not begin until these carryover stocks from the previous pool had been reduced to reasonable proportions. Actually, sales from the 1953-54 pool did not begin until February 1, 1954. To put the matter briefly, stocks of wheat were carried in the 1953-54 pool from August 1, 1953 to April 29, 1955-a period of 21 months. Sales operations were carried on over a period of 15 months. It is not surprising, therefore, that carrying charges applicable to the 1953-54 pool were substantially higher than in any previous pooling period administered by the wheat board.
Now, let me describe briefly the marketing situation faced by the wheat board during the life of the pool. Following the unprecedented export demand for cereals in
1952-53, world demand for wheat fell away sharply in the crop year 1953-54. As the house knows, our exports of wheat and flour in that crop year were 255 million bushels as compared with 385 million bushels in the preceding crop year. This decline in world demand affected particularly Canada, the United States and Australia.
While world demand improved during the first nine months of the present crop year, competition has been extremely keen and during this period the United States surplus disposal program has emerged as one of the chief factors in the international wheat position. Canadian export sales have improved, but not to the extent that would achieve the rapid movement of wheat hoped for earlier in the crop year.
The United States has a triple-barrelled surplus disposal program in effect. Wheat may be bartered for strategic materials, may be distributed to importing countries for local currencies which are usually left in the recipient country for development or other purposes, or may be given away as a relief measure. So far the cost of procurement of wheat in the United States for surplus disposal abroad has amounted to over $200 million. In addition to this surplus disposal program, which cannot be regarded in any way as ordinary commercial transactions, the United States have during the present crop year increased their export subsidies in order to effect sales. As at the end of March, the United States had increased their exports of wheat and flour by over 60 million bushels as compared with the previous crop year, and the increase will undoubtedly be larger by the end of the crop year.
The wheat board and the government expect, and are fully prepared, to deal with competition in world wheat markets. The record shows that we have met this competition most effectively. Canada has retained a high proportion of commercial markets throughout the world. In recent months, however, the surplus disposal programs of the United States are being pressed to the point where, in our opinion, they are having a disturbing effect upon commercial markets.
3782	HOUSE OF
1953-54 Wheat Pool Operations
The purpose behind the surplus disposal efforts of the United States is to increase consumption in areas that cannot afford to buy wheat. Canada has no quarrel with that principle. It is doubtful, however, whether anything is gained, and certainly much is lost, if surplus disposal programs are pushed to the point where they disturb normal trading relationships.
I should add that during the period of the 1953-54 pool, wheat prices declined substantially and this, of course, has lowered the return which the wheat board have been able to secure from their sales. With these general observations in mind, let me deal now with the financial results of the 1953-54 wheat pool.
Producers' deliveries of wheat to the pool were 398 million bushels. A total of 148-7 million bushels, including 21-4 million bushels of priced open sales contracts, were transferred to the 1953-54 pool from the 1952-53 pool as at January 30, 1954. Deliveries from others than producers were 1-4 million bushels, bringing the total volume of wheat in the pool to 548-1 million bushels. Completed sales to the close of business on April 29 amounted to 384 million bushels. Therefore there remained as at April 29 a balance of 164-1 million bushels. These stocks included 42-9 million bushels covered by priced open sales contracts and unsold stocks of 121 - 2 million bushels.
In closing out the 1953-54 pool the open sales contracts were transferred to the 1954-55 pool at contract prices and unsold stocks were transferred on the basis of board selling prices for April 29 less an allowance for carrying charges subsequent to the date of transfer and an allowance for market risk in the case of certain slow-moving grades.
The final operating surplus in the pool is $64,725,147.55 from which must be deducted the 10 cents per bushel interim payment made last fall. This payment amounted to $38,638,704.15. After providing for P.F.A.A. levy on the interim and final payments and after allowing for final payment expenses, the surplus for distribution to producers as a final payment is $25,411,407.89.
On producers' deliveries of 398 million bushels the average final payment is 6-384 cents per bushel.
The final net payments to producers on the
principal grades of wheat	are as follows:	
No. 1 northern 			per bushel
No. 2 northern 			
No. 3 northern 			
No. 4 northern 			t*
	. 10-715	**
	. 13-303	**
Feed wheat 			


Prior to the deduction of the P.F.A.A. levy, the net price realized by producers for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William/ Port Arthur or Vancouver will be $1-56426 per bushel.
The Durum wheat position continued very strong in 1953-54 and again in the present crop year. The final payments on Durum grades are as follows:
No. 1	Amber Durum	
51-987	cents	per	bushelNo. 2	Amber Durum	
52-307	cents	per	bushelNo. 3	Amber Durum	
56-427	cents	per	bushelNo. 4	Amber Durum	
55-063	cents	per	bushelNo. 5	Amber Durum	
19-159	cents	per	bushelNo. 6	Amber Durum	
21-139	cents	per	bushel
Prior to the deduction of the P.F.A.A. levy, the net price realized by producers for No. 1 Amber Durum will be $2-12613 per bushel.
There will be final payments on grades of wheat which did not participate in the interim payment last fall. For example, the final net payment on No. 2 Garnet is 5-105 cents per bushel; on No. 2 Alberta Winters, 3-002 cents per bushel; and on No. 2 C.W. Soft White Springs, 13-798 cents per bushel.
To complete the story, here are representative board selling prices applicable to the 1953-54 pool. The average selling price for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver was in round figures $1-73 per bushel. The corresponding result in the case of the 1952-53 pool was $1-90 per bushel. Therefore, by reason of the decline in wheat prices the board in 1953-54 received 17 cents per bushel less than in the preceding pool, measured, of course, by the return for No. 1 northern wheat. The lower level of board selling prices is reflected in the prices which producers realized on their deliveries to the 195354 pool. I have already referred to the relatively high carrying charges in this pool; the actual increase as compared with the 1952-53 pool was approximately 8i cents per bushel. In these two factors, lower selling prices and increased carrying charges, we have the difference between prices realized by producers. The distribution of final payment cheques will commence before the end of this month.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Would the minister allow an observation on the statement he has made and a couple of questions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will allow questions but no observations.


Mr. Macdonnell:: That is for the Speaker to say.


John George Diefenbaker: The farmers will be disappointed as a result of what has happened.

Is it a fact that the United States is engaged in a policy of disposal of surplus wheat by way of relief and also through currency deals to a degree that has interfered with the world market for wheat? Will the minister give figures as to the total amount paid during the pool year for storage, and will he also give some indication why it is that Canada's share of an expanding world wheat market declined so substantially during the first eight months of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the disposal program of the United States has affected us seriously in our minor markets such as Israel and Norway, smaller countries that usually buy substantially from Canada. This year they are taking wheat from the United States either as relief or on currency deals. I do not think the world price of wheat is affected particularly except as we find it necessary to lower our price to meet the premiums paid on United States wheat. Our price has remained stable now for several months. I think that answers the first question. As to the second question-


John George Diefenbaker: The total amount of storage charges.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -I cannot of course give the figures offhand. I think my hon. friend might put that question on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister mentioned that it was very high this year, 8J cents a bushel higher than the year before. How much was the total?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not carry the total figure in my mind. That is a matter that will have to be referred to the wheat board and the easiest way for my hon. friend and for me is for him to put it on the order paper. Then it will go to the wheat board automatically.
The third question was what?


John George Diefenbaker: Why was it that Canada's share of the world market fell away in the first eight months of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to assess Canada's share of the world wheat market at this time. Various wheat comes on the market at various periods. As my hon. friend knows, for the first four months of the eight months' period we can only ship out of Atlantic or Pacific ports. I do not believe you can assess Canada's share of the world market until the end of the crop year. We are more than holding our own in our principal markets. Our over-all share may be down due to the fact we are being hurt in the smaller markets. I doubt if any great light can be shed on our share of world markets at this particular time.
1953-54 Wheat Pool Operations


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if I might ask a question of the minister. Is the government of Canada considering adopting any policy in order to increase our share of the world wheat market or to recover our share of the world wheat market, such as accepting local currencies or following a policy of making wheat available whenever there is a famine?
There is another question I should like to ask arising out of the statement the minister has made. It concerns the very low and disappointing final payment. I am wondering if the government and the minister would consider making available immediately an interim payment on the 1954 crop in order to at least alleviate the very serious financial catastrophe in western Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government is always considering every means of increasing Canada's share of the world markets. If we decide on any different procedure than that being followed at the moment, I shall announce it immediately in the house.
So far as the second question is concerned, I think the producers in western Canada believe that, in a period of congestion, the present price of wheat has been holding up very well. I might say that Canada is largely responsible for the fact that the price of wheat has not collapsed. We have refused to be panicked. I believe that, considering the situation of world supplies which are dropping, it would be very unwise for Canada to enter into a give-away program simply for the purpose of reducing our wheat surplus.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister say whether an interim payment is being considered, because the payment he has announced today amounts to only about $150 per western farmer, and that will not go very far.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out that this follows a prairie farm assistance payment of about $28 million. It is, of course, quite impossible to consider an interim payment on the wheat of the last crop year, since very little of that wheat has been sold.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: May
I direct a question to the minister consequent upon his statement? The minister said that the wheat board and the government expect and are fully prepared to deal with competition in the world wheat markets. What steps has the government or the wheat board taken to meet this competition in world wheat markets of which he speaks?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very aggressive selling in every world market; we have agents in every world market. I believe that considering the fact we are selling our wheat for

External Affairs
cash and others are giving it away, our position has been very well maintained.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say a word in explanation of the statement which I understood him to make that the surplus disposal plans of the United States, which he outlined in considerable detail, have not affected the price? Would he explain that a little further?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price is established by the principal exporters and by the principal importers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Including the United
States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The United States program has not affected, for instance, the market in the United Kingdom or the market in certain other principal countries. Such markets establish the world price. Nevertheless, as part of their program, the United States has disposed of $200 million worth of wheat in smaller markets under the three programs I mentioned, and have by so doing curtailed the government's ability to sell wheat in those markets.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 379, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the independence of parliament provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act so as to make it uniform that no person shall be at one and the same time a federal cabinet minister and a director of a company incorporated under any act of parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the signature of the Austrian state treaty, I requested our minister in Vienna to transmit to Chancellor Raab a message of congratulations on behalf of the Canadian government. The message was delivered to the Austrian chancellor yesterday, Sunday, May 15.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on Monday, May 9, the hon. member for

Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) made a reference to article 16 of the draft Austrian treaty which was then being reviewed in Vienna by the ambassadors of the four powers in collaboration with the Austrian government. As members of the house are aware, article 16 of the draft treaty dealt with displaced persons and refugees in terms which might have meant requiring Austria to facilitate the return of refugees to their countries of origin against their will. The house will be glad to learn that the four powers and Austria agreed to delete this article from the draft treaty and that the text of the treaty signed in Vienna yesterday does not contain any provision under which displaced persons and refugees now residing in Austria could be forced to return to their country of origin.
[Later:!


BIG FOUR MEETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to say anything regarding the "summit" meeting which has been arranged for among the big four powers, and what stand Canada has taken with reference to that matter? Second, has he anything further to report respecting the tentative invitation by the U.S.S.R. to parliamentarians of various countries outside the iron curtain to visit that country?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend spoke to me about the last part of his question this morning I have had an opportunity of seeing what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said about this aspect of the question and what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said in this house on April 1. I am afraid that at the present time there is nothing useful that can be added to what has been said already, both by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Prime Minister. The matter which my hon. friend raises is now being noted and will be followed through by the officials of the department and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns from Europe some time this week.
With regard to the first part of the question, as my hon. friend and other members know, there have been important developments during the past week. The German federal republic has entered NATO and into the full political and defence association with the western nations which we have hoped to

achieve for so long. A state treaty for Austria has been signed and 10 years of occupation ended. The leading western powers have invited the Soviet union to a meeting, both of heads of governments and of foreign ministers, and the Soviet union has accepted the invitation.
The Soviet union has tabled a series of proposals at the disarmament talks in London which contain significant changes of policy on some points relating to disarmament and which may point to some of the subjects to be discussed at a four power meeting. At a conference in Warsaw, the Soviet union has set up a unified command for its forces and the forces of its satellites in eastern Europe. We learn that Marshal Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev will visit Yugoslavia.
So we may ask, what do all these rapid developments imply so far as relaxation of tension and a European and even world settlement are concerned? So far as the western nations are concerned, the various steps in their policies have been intended to lead eventually to peaceful negotiation of outstanding differences between east and west to remove the risk of world war. The invitation extended to the Soviet union to participate in discussions both between heads of governments and foreign ministers establishes this intention on the part of the western powers. It underlines the fervent desire of western nations to find any possible way of arriving at a peaceful settlement of outstanding issues based on recognition of the legitimate security interests and national freedom of the nations most directly concerned.
We may well ask, what are the Soviet intentions? The final signing of the Austrian state treaty and the apparent concessions on disarmament do lead one to hope for a greater willingness to discuss other problems. The extent of Soviet diplomatic activity does suggest that various far-reaching changes may be planned.
The Canadian government naturally welcomes the fact that high level talks between the leading western powers and the Soviet union will take place. We think that considerable progress can be made at these talks and that there are compelling reasons of national interest on both sides for representatives of these nations to examine the fundamental differences between them in the immediate future. We have noted the expressed desires of some Soviet leaders to negotiate with the west in spite of the basic ideological differences. We have noted the concessions made on specific points. We hope that the Soviet government will continue to respond to the deep desire of people in all countries for peaceful solutions of international problems.
Questions



QUESTIONS


Mr. Buchanan:: When will the William Carson start regular runs between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: It has not yet been found possible to fix a date for the commencement of regular service by the William Carson.


CHILD GUIDANCE CENTRE, BURNABY, B.C.  GRANTS
Mr. Goode:: 1.	What is the amount of grants already offered to the government of British Columbia for the child guidance centre and day hospital, Burnaby, British Columbia?
2.	What further grants are contemplated?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	$15,000.
2.	If requests for further assistance are received from the province on behalf of this centre, they will be considered within the terms of the national health program.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Have any organizations asked, since July 1, 1954, that family allowances be (a) increased; (b) decreased?
2.	If so, how many in each category, and what are their names?
3.	How many persons, if any, by letter or by signing a petition have asked, since July 1, 1954, that family allowances be (a) increased; (b) decreased?


WHEAT STORAGE
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were in elevator and terminal storage in Canada as of the 30th July, 1954?
2.	What was the total amount paid for elevator and terminal storage for all wheat in storage between the 1st July, 1953 and the 30th July, 1954?
3.	Were any terminal elevators or other crop storage facilities owned by the government leased to private companies or agencies during each of the crop years of 1952, 1953 and 1954?
4.	If so, where were each of them located and what companies were the lessees?


GRAIN IN STORAGE
Mr. Argue:: 1.	Does tile Department of Trade and Commerce issue statistics showing quantities of grain on hand in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the date of the most recent issue of such statistics?
3.	What was the quantity of each type of grain on hand?
4.	How much in each case was held (a) on farms in each province; (b) in country elevators in each province; (c) in terminals; (d) any other position?
5.	How are such statistics obtained?

Motions for Papers
6.	How many persons make such reports and what is the occupation of the majority?
7.	Has the department been informed by any farm organization that such reports are not accurate?
8.	If so, what are the names of such farm organizations and in what way is it alleged that such reports are inaccurate?
9.	On what type of grain was this difference claimed, and to what extent?
10.	What is the difference, if any, between the quantity estimated by the department and that estimated by any farm organization?


Mr. Dickey:: Return tabled.


PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS AND DENTISTS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How much has been paid to medical doctors and dental surgeons in Saskatchewan by all departments of government in each of the years, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
2.	What are the names of each and every one of said medical doctors and dental surgeons, their respective addresses and the total amounts paid to each of them during the said periods?


COMPANY DIRECTORS-CABINET MINISTERS
Mr. Stewari (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Are any cabinet ministers directors of corporations?
2.	If so, what cabinet ministers hold directorships?
3.	In what companies are these directorships held?


FEDERAL BRIDGES
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	What bridges used by motor vehicles are owned by the federal government, federal corporations or commissions, or federally-owned transportation systems?
2.	Which of the bridges are free of tolls for motor vehicle use?
3.	What are the gross revenues, operating expenses and net operating income of Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges from the year in which collection of tolls was begun for motor vehicles on each of these bridges?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and/or the Minister of National Revenue, since January 1, 1950, relating to the accounts of the said corporation.


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this motion may I say that I have been trying to get in touch with the Auditor General who returned to town over the week end. I shall not raise further objection at this time than I did on a previous occasion, and the motion will be proceeded with as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



DAUPHIN, MAN., INDIAN SCHOOL

Mr. Zapliiny:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or his department and any person or organization, relating to the construction of an Indian residential school at Dauphin, Manitoba, from January 1, 1954 to date.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Now tabled.



SUCCESSION DUTY ACT-INFORMATION

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of any order in council, agreement, or other document authorizing the communication, to a person or persons not in the service of the government of Canada, of any information obtained under the provisions of the Dominion Succession Duty Act, or establishing the legal entitlement of such person or persons to receive such information or to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of that act.


James Joseph McCann: In connection with this motion may I say that the officials of the department were to get in touch with the mover to see whether or not he would be satisfied with the documents that have to do with the province of Ontario, which I think are the ones he is most interested in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it is quite that way. One of the deputy ministers telephoned me this morning and asked whether I would be satisfied to have produced a sample copy. That would be quite satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be dropped?


James Joseph McCann: Stands'.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The motion calls for documents having a bearing on this matter and my understanding is that the department is suggesting that they produce only a sample document rather than the whole series which might be available, on the understanding that if we felt that the inquiry which we have in mind was not satisfied by the production of the sample document I might ask for others. For the purposes of the present motion I would be quite content to have produced a sample of the agreement. Perhaps the motion should be adopted and satisfied by the production of only one sample copy.


James Joseph McCann: That is quite agreeable, subject to the reservations which the mover has made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged

between any department of government and (a) Guaranty Trust Company of Canada; (b) Capital Trust Company, since January 1, 1945.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no objection to this motion but of course it would not apply to anything that by statute is made privileged.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion agreed to with the reservation indicated by the right hon. Prime Minister.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question some time ago by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and in response to personal inquiries by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), I informed the house that it was not the intention to make Brandon North a stop for the Super Continental.
The Canadian National Railways now advise that in the light of actual experience of two weeks' operation of the new train the management are satisfied that the Super Continental can make a conditional stop at Brandon North without interfering with schedules. Accordingly, it has been decided that a conditional stop will be made at Brandon North for passengers to or from Nakina and east, or to or from Edmonton and west.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of citation 348 in Beauchesne, second edition, may I ask the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) if he intends to reintroduce at this session of parliament his bill to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to election expenses?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member answers the question, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred the Chair to citation 348.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Citation 348 in the second edition, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I have always understood that a question to be asked of a member had to do with affairs of the house with which he was connected, and was not asking him if he was about to introduce a bill in the future.
50433-239i
Inquiries of the Ministry I think the hon. member under the circumstances should not ask the question of the hon. member for Quebec South. He can telephone him tomorrow.


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I know the hon. member is always willing to answer, but if we were to follow this course I am afraid it would lead to breaking the rules, and I do not think we should allow that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then maybe the hon. member will introduce his bill at the earliest opportunity.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



IRRIGATION


John George Diefenbaker: In
rising to take advantage of the opportunity that the making of this motion permits, I wish to refer to the statement that has been made by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture, or rather the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is sometimes difficult to know which department looks after which, with the distribution of marketing as between these two departments.


Mr. Gardiner:: It has never been anywhere else but there.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a statement that will be received with deep regret on the part of the farming population generally that depends for its livelihood upon the marketing of wheat. Indeed, by the action of this government, on the basis of purchasing power during the period 1935 to 1939, farmers will be receiving on the farm a price of about 58 cents a bushel. When agriculture is not prosperous the Canadian people cannot be prosperous, for one-seventh of the population is directly dependent on agriculture and a further large segment of our population engaged in industry, transportation, etc., is directly affected. It has been estimated that farmers purchase for the average family four times more than does the urban family. I know that there will be a profound sense of disappointment on the part of western farmers when they are advised that the amount that they are to receive in the cutoff of the pool will be slightly over 6 cents a bushel. What is happening follows in consequence of what we of the opposition had

Wheat
warned against for several years-loss of markets arising through the failure of this government to act, when the portents and indications demanded effective action.
The wheat producer is receiving a disappointing final payment, one of the reasons being that failure to act. Since 1950 we of the opposition have been endeavouring to interest the government in the convening of a British commonwealth trade conference. The answer on every occasion has been that such a course was unnecessary. In the 1953 election the optimistic ministers of the government contended that there was nothing to be concerned about regarding the loss of markets and that Canada had so many markets she could scarcely produce enough to meet their demands.
We find ourselves now in a position dangerous to the economy of this country. The minister's attitude today was far removed from that ultra-optimism he exuded in the past. Today his attitude was one of realism based on experience. The failure to take the initiative during the last several years, based upon danger signals which indicated the threat and the peril to the Canadian wheat farmer directly and indirectly to the people of Canada, is now bringing its reward. I asked the minister how much were the carrying charges on the wheat in storage last year, and he said that was a question for the order paper. It is extremely hard to get answers to that question, Mr. Speaker. For a considerable length of time we have tried to ascertain what those carrying charges are. If I took him down correctly, the minister said that the increase in the carrying charges in the last year now being wound up was 8J cents per bushel. What those carrying charges are, we do not know. Three or four years ago they amounted to $17 million a year.
Two years or two and one-half years ago my recollection is that, on the basis of computation although not on information received from the responsible minister or the department, they amounted to some $25 million. That is a tremendous amount. On the basis of information that one is able to secure, I believe it is safe to say that the Canadian farmer in the last year has had taken from him in storage charges the amount of at least $65,000 a day. Whether or not those figures be correct, I do not know; but the amount has been tremendous and there are still in the elevators of this country large quantities of wheat which, to all intents and purposes, may be unmarketable. For the last year or so members on this side of the house have been endeavouring to get the minister to place before the house and the country a picture of the so-called aggressive policy for

the marketing of the farmers' wheat, but we have not been able to secure any information.
On May 12 the Canadian Press reported the situation. It is one dangerous in its import, one that challenges the Canadian economy. The report reads:
Canada's share of an expanding world wheat market has declined while that of the United States has increased. Thus the United States has recaptured the lead from Canada as the world's top exporter.
That is all within the last few years. What is this government's policy? You cannot blame the wheat board because the wheat board acts under the express direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the ministers of this government. What is that policy? What has been done? What active measures are being taken? My friend the hon. member for Assiniboia asked this afternoon and he received the usual illusory, uncertain, indefinite answer which indicated that the question might be answered in a general way by saying that no one need concern himself; for after all, this government knows best and things will turn out all right in the end. The Canadian Press report continues:
In the first eight months of the current crop year which began last August, total exports from the four major shippers-Canada, the U.S., Australia and Argentina-increased by 102,700,000 bushels to 517,500,000 from 414,800,000 a year ago, the bureau of statistics reported today.
Canada's shipments increased by 1,800,000 bushels out of an increase of 102,700,000 bushels during the course of the year. What of this government, that should have acted to provide markets for Canadian wheat, particularly when it enjoys a reputation for being the best wheat in the world? The report goes on to say this:
However, Canada's shipments increased only by 1,800,000 bushels to 172,700,000-
[DOT]-while those of the U.S. jumped by 64,200,000 to 189,900,000. The U.S. has led the world in wheat exports in most post-war years but in the first eight months of last year was far behind Canada-
The United States is trying to find markets. The Canadian government is hoping to find markets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are looking for cash markets.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend makes an interruption but he did not answer the question today as to what the government is doing. The farmers of Canada want to know that.
This year the United States has been putting on a big export drive . . .
I ask the minister to tell the people of this country what kind of drive the wheat board and this government have been putting on.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: None.


John George Diefenbaker: If it has been a drive, it has been a pedestrian one. Then the report goes on to mention that the United States has been giving some wheat away. I have asked the minister several times during the last year the question whether the United States was undermining the wheat market of the world by such action. I think in every case- and I have the quotations available-the minister's attitude was that there was nothing to worry about with regard to United States give-away policy, that it was of no serious importance. The United States has been selling seme of its wheat under defence and local currency deals. As far as defence deals are concerned, I realize that Canada cannot participate. But I ask the minister to tell the people of Canada why something cannot be done to provide for the exchange of our wheat by local currency deals such as those that are being made by the United States. What is the reason? Certainly the results revealed today indicate a lamentable failure on the part of this government to preserve our markets and to assure to Canadian farmers engaged in the production of wheat their fair and proper share of the world market.
More than that I will not say at this time for there is not available to members of this house information which permits of an extended analysis of the course being followed. On May 5 I asked this question:
How many bushels of wheat were in elevator and terminal storage in Canada as of the 30th July 1954?
That was not a difficult question to answer. That information is available. But parliament waits at the convenience of the department. The next question was:
What was the total amount paid for elevator and terminal storage for all wheat in storage between the 1st July, 1953 and the 30th July, 1954?
We wait for that information now embalmed in the form of an order for return passed today.
The next question had to do with terminal elevators being rented to private companies. I have no objection to some delay in that connection. But as far as the others are concerned the minister has the answers, or he would not have been able to report that carrying charges increased last year by 8J cents per bushel.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the last two or three years in the marketing of Canadian wheat indicates that this government has lost its way and that Canada's share of the world market, proportionately to that of other exporting countries, has been frittered away not only by the failure of this government to
Wheat
act but by its refusal to admit that the problem even existed. Whenever the matter was raised in the house the government has answered in an offhand attitude of bravado, "After all, time will tell" or in effect saying, "All is well".
Today's revelation makes this a black Monday in the history of the wheat farmers of Canada. No one expects the government to do everything, but surely in the face of a world situation such as has prevailed in the last two or three years we should have had some action of an effective nature, something of an intensive sales campaign by the Department of Trade and Commerce, in place of optimistic statements made from time to time.
Having said that, sir, what I intend to refer to today is in general the development of our resources in order not only to meet the present unemployment situation but also to provide for development so as to assure all parts of Canada something approaching equality in national development to the end that our provinces may advance together reasonably equal in the opportunities that are afforded. In the last two or three days I have been privileged to be in the maritimes and to see something of the resources of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the fact that that part of Canada is not receiving-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon.
member at this point to inquire from him if he intends to leave the subject of wheat and enter upon another subject? He has introduced the question of wheat as a grievance and he cannot leave it to go into another subject unless he allows other members to terminate the discussion on the subject of wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I give you a preview and tell you what I intend to say? I intend to deal in general with the development of our resources to the end that markets will be provided within our country and opportunities given to a greater degree for the marketing of our farm products here by a development policy designed to bring about equality of expansion in all parts of our country. That is what I am concerned with at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is about to cover too much territory. The subject of wheat was introduced, and other hon. members may wish to continue with that subject. We might as well initiate another budget debate if the hon. member is to be permitted to go over the entire picture of the natural resources of the country and deal with the finding of markets for all these products. The question of wheat is one which in itself is substantial and has very often been

South Saskatchewan River Project made the subject of a grievance before going into supply. For instance, I would refer the hon. member to the fact that on February 18 the question of the final wheat payment for 1953 was raised in a similar motion by the hon. member for Assiniboia and we dealt with nothing else but wheat at that particular time. I am afraid the hon. member is perhaps embarking upon too large a territory, and that might create difficulties.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not know the minister was going to give his report, but I base my argument this afternoon on a Regina Leader-Post editorial of January 17 headed, "Income Drop Shows Need for Dam". I am going to deal with the fall in agricultural income. I wish to refer particularly to the situation in the province of Saskatchewan and the need of something being done to assure equality of income as well as assurance and security of income.
When Your Honour says that I may not deal with the situation otherwise than with respect to wheat, I have no objection to that restriction. What I want to do is deal with the fall in farm income as revealed in the said editorial comment. Then in particular, I wish to deal with the failure of the government to provide for an assurance of a continuing source of income in the western provinces through the provision of such projects as the one to which I wish to refer particularly.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might make a comment on the point of order. I have no objection whatever to the hon. member for Prince Albert proceeding in whatever way he wishes, but I also have some comments to make about wheat and some other matters and I am quite prepared to do it. I do not mind waiting until my turn comes, whenever that may be, but I think whatever latitude is given to the first speaker should also be given to the others.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am concerned about is that we should not deviate from what has been the practice with respect to the raising of grievances. It must be a specific grievance. According to the remarks the hon. member for Prince Albert has just made in explanation of what he intends to bring forward, he wants to deal with markets generally and the loss of markets for farm products and then, although he has already dealt with wheat, he wants to deal with the South Saskatchewan dam. He has just indicated he wants to deal with that point because that is the point to which the editorial in the Regina Leader-Post has reference. Furthermore, he wants to deal with the low incomes with which the farmers are now

being faced. Maybe the hon. member is going to conclude his remarks with an amendment to the motion to go into supply. That would certainly specify the grievance he has in mind.
If he is not going to terminate his remarks with such an amendment, then I am afraid I must say he can always deal with these various other subjects when other motions to go into supply are presented. At this moment, however, it would not be proper to initiate another budget debate, and it is certainly contrary to our practice not to have a specific grievance raised at this point.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, your suggestion will deprive the amendment of the argument that would have been used in its support which, if I may conclude with a few words, would be based upon the editorial in the Regina Leader-Post headed, "Income Drop Shows Need for Dam", and which points out that the bureau of statistics has reported a steep drop in Saskatchewan's income in 1954 and that the statistics on farm earnings contain the seeds of an irrefutable argument in support of the contention that action should be taken immediately to provide for the construction of the dam.
I shall move the amendment without any further argument, because all the arguments have been advanced. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should give consideration to the immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project."


Mr. Speaker:: How can I accept an amendment to the motion to go into supply with respect to the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam when the hon. member has made a speech on wheat? I want to be quite reasonable, and I want to understand the position of the hon. gentleman exactly as he indicated it. I do not want to do any injustice to him. It may be that my knowledge of affairs with respect to the construction of dams, and the problems relating to them, leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can help me in the dilemma in which I find myself at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: As you stated, Mr. Speaker, I may not develop my argument in support of the amendment. Farmers' income has fallen, and therefore I wished to contend that the dam was needed at this time, first to secure permanent production and, second, to assist unemployment at this time and

provide a means whereby security for the farmers may be maintained in the future. Your Honour has taken the view that I may not argue the reasons, and therefore I cannot develop the argument. I have to restrict myself to generalization.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not the only one who
is puzzled because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), thinking the grievance raised at this time concerned wheat, remained in the house until he found out at the last moment that the hon. member was turning to the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. Now we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) interested in the problem.
It may be that other members will have arguments to introduce concerning the dam which will not bear so much on the wheat problem. I see that the house is in a good mood, and therefore I will consider the point. I am not allowed, of course, to assume things but I believe I would not be too far wrong if I were to say that the hon. gentleman, having heard the statement from the minister on wheat, decided to discuss the matter of wheat while at the same time having the intention of discussing the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project.
This puts us in a predicament. What are members going to talk about now? Here we have arguments introduced concerning the statement on wheat made by the minister before the orders of the day, and the hon. member	ends	up with	an	amendment to the	effect	that the	government
should give immediate consideration to the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. If I were to be strict, I certainly would not accept this amendment. I will say this immediately, that I hope this will not be taken as a precedent. We are now dealing with the South Saskatchewan river dam, and apparently considering wheat only in so far as it relates to the	dam.


Hazen Robert Argue: I must
confess that I was not sure whether I was going to be able to talk about wheat or the South Saskatchewan dam. But since the South Saskatchewan dam may, in itself, according to statements that have already been made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by Your Honour, in some way be connected perhaps I may be able to continue to keep some connection between the South Saskatchewan dam and the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this afternoon. The statement the minister made to this house is certainly a severe economic blow to Saskatchewan.
1955	3791
South Saskatchewan River Project Mr. Speaker:	Order. I believe all members realize that at this moment it is quite difficult to keep decorum in the debate if we are going to have, on the one hand, members discussing wheat in relation to the statement made by the minister today, and on the other hand speak to an amendment indicating that the grievance is the consideration of the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. Surely, there must be a way of arriving at a solution to this dilemma. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the first one to take the floor, and therefore had the initiative in moving an amendment. Having discussed the statement made by the minister on wheat, and then at the end moved this amendment which deals with another subject, he has left me in this position: if I accept the amendment, how can I refuse permission to hon. members to deal with wheat? Are we going to have a general discussion on wheat on the amendment which is now before the Chair and which deals with the South Saskatchewan dam?
By unanimous consent could we not-I am trying to find a solution and the more I think about it the more difficult it becomes. At this moment we should either discuss wheat and leave the South Saskatchewan dam until later or we should take the amendment now and leave wheat until later. That is the situation. I would be quite prepared, if hon. members would agree, to have a discussion on the South Saskatchewan dam now and allow the question of wheat to be reintroduced later as a second grievance. I believe that might be a solution. We cannot discuss both at the same time. If that is agreeable, that seems to be a reasonable solution. Let us leave in abeyance the subject of wheat, and let us say that the hon. member for Prince Albert has dealt with it prematurely. Let us deal now with the subject matter of the amendment, and talk about the immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. Later, when this question is disposed of, we can deal with the question of wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the question of the South Saskatchewan river dam, I think that we have already-


Mr. Thatcher:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all deference to your ruling, sir, if the rules have not been obeyed I think they should be. The matter of wheat has been introduced, and it is a matter which should be discussed this afternoon. I, for one, would like to object, if I may be permitted to do so. I think you should enforce the rules, and I believe the house

South Saskatchewan River Project would go along more expeditiously it the matter were handled that way.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) will understand that I did not make a ruling. I thought it was the general consensus that, in order to solve the dilemma in which we found ourselves, the members would discuss the subject matter of the amendment. Then, once this amendment has been disposed of, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, along with others, may come back to the question of wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: I, for one, certainly think your ruling is fair and that the wheat question, important as it is and close as it is to my heart, could wait for another day.
I said we have already done too much talking about the South Saskatchewan dam. All we have had from the government opposite is talk and more talk; promise and repromise. Now, after 20 years of successive and continuous promises to the people of Saskatchewan that something would be done, we get from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of this country a continuing and definite "no". What is the Prime Minister's answer? It is the most amazing answer that anyone could possibly imagine. He says he cannot be convinced that it is in the national interest. How does one find out whether or not something is in the national interest? Surely the opinions of members of parliament should have some bearing on any conclusion as to whether or not this project is in the national interest. And so far as the three opposition parties are concerned let me say this, that any time I have heard members in the C.C.F., the Social Credit or the Conservative parties make statements on this question of the South Saskatchewan dam, I have heard them give their willing support to it. And even though the C.C.F. party, of which I am a member, has usually obtained its chief strength in Saskatchewan, and as a result the Conservative and Social Credit parties have not had the same strength in that province, the members of those parties have been broadminded enough to look at this project as one in the national interest. And, because of this, the Conservative and the Social Credit parties have supported the South Saskatchewan project.
Oh, the Liberal party has supported it, too-that is, some remnants of the Liberal party, some splinter members of the Liberal party and of the cabinet. But the cabinet does not support the building of the South Saskatchewan dam. One might expect some support from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), because if there is one thing he is good at it is the process
[Mr. Thatcher.)
of making political speeches. While I do not have reports of his speeches before me, I do recall press reports of speeches he made in by-elections, particularly the one in Rosthern in 1948, in which he said that the returning of a Liberal member to parliament was very important, if the people of Saskatchewan wanted to have the dam built. He implied that all the people of Rosthern had to do was to elect a Liberal candidate to parliament, that that would be the green light to the cabinet, and that the people of Saskatchewan could look toward the building of that project.
Well, that was just another promise that meant nothing. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has campaigned in every election, provincially and federally, since 1935, and usually quite successfully. One of his main planks and one of his chief promises has been that the Liberal party would build the South Saskatchewan dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some day.


Hazen Robert Argue: "Some day"-and there is more truth in that interjection than in all the speeches the Minister of Agriculture has been making on the subject in the last 20 years.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have all been to the same effect.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am afraid if we wait for the Liberal party to build the South Saskatchewan dam, and if we wait for the present Prime Minister to build the South Saskatchewan dam, then, at the rate they are going, the dam will never be built. No, it will never be built because apparently the Prime Minister has a very narrow idea of what is in the national interest. His idea is so narrow, when considering what is in the national interest, that the farther a project gets away from Ottawa apparently, in his view, the less importance it has.
The Minister of Agriculture should be attempting to persuade the Prime Minister to build the dam, instead of coming out with more talk and more propositions, most if not all of which are fictitious, and pretending to the government of Saskatchewan that the dam is just around the corner.
The C.C.F. party believes that any project, no matter where it may be built, if it is in the national interest and is so considered by a majority of members in the house, should be built. Even though the St. Lawrence seaway development may not help Saskatchewan particularly, we are prepared to support it, although that development in the main may benefit certain sections of the Canadian people more than some other

sections. Nevertheless Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia support the St. Lawrence seaway.
I believe the only real obstacle in the way of the South Saskatchewan dam at the present time is the Prime Minister himself. If he would stand in his place in the House of Commons and announce to the house and country that the government intended to proceed with the building of this dam, I am convinced his announcement would receive the unanimous approval of all members of parliament. But one man-only one-stands in the way. And I am afraid that, as the days go by, more and more is one man going to stand in the way of other progressive measures the people of this country want. I could name them-national health insurance, full employment measures-all these things, and only one man cannot be convinced. The great Uncle Louie has become the chief barrier to progress in this country along the lines I have just mentioned.


An hon. Member:: How ridiculous can you get?


Hazen Robert Argue: We will be very glad to have speeches from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, and from any others who may wish to speak.
I have never been one who would take away credit where it was due, even if it concerned a Liberal member in the House of Commons. I have never refused him credit if he supported those things that are right and in the interests of the people he represents. I remember a debate not so many years ago in the house on the subject of making a larger final payment on the five-year wheat pool. I recall that two members on the Liberal side of the house-I believe the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) and the former member for Springfield- voted in favour of that motion. I have never hesitated on any platform to give them credit for voting in that way.


Mr. Sluder:: How did you vote?


Hazen Robert Argue: If Saskatchewan Liberal members would vote for the amendment now before the house they would show by their votes that they really want the South Saskatchewan dam, and would be doing something to help the province they represent.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no.


Irvin William Studer: How did he vote on the bill for $65 million? He was not even in the house at that time.
1955	3793
South Saskatchewan River Project Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek asked the hon. member for Assiniboia if he would permit a question, and the answer was no. Therefore the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek must resume his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the hon. member who is interrupting would take time out to talk to the Prime Minister on this subject, and show when the vote is taken how he stands on it by voting in favour of it, and in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, he would be making a far greater contribution than by interrupting when other members are speaking. And if the Minister of Agriculture ever hopes to have the South Saskatchewan dam approved by the cabinet and by the Prime Minister, then as the cabinet minister from Saskatchewan the Minister of Agriculture should ask his colleagues in the Liberal party from Saskatchewan to vote for this amendment.
The people of that province have waited far too long. They are indignant that continuous Liberal promises have not been kept. The South Saskatchewan river dam is important to the economy of the province and of the rest of western Canada. Though at the present time we face a problem of too much rather than one of too little moisture, nevertheless the history of western Canada proves that great portions of it, particularly the Palliser triangle, go through recurring periods in which there is lack of rainfall.
The government says it would take 10 years to build the South Saskatchewan dam, and probably this would be one of the best years to start the project. We have had a series of years when there has been higher than average rainfall; it could easily happen that by the time the dam is built, if not before, Saskatchewan would be back to a period of low rainfall, when the vast quantities of water the dam would store could be utilized for irrigation purposes, to provide water for 500,000 acres of land.
Surely that is the kind of planning and the kind of leadership the people of Saskatchewan and of Canada should expect from their government. Surely the government should look ahead to protect the people of the nation against catastrophes that we all know will recur at some time in the future.
Probably there has never been a year since the beginning of the war when the dam could be better built, more easily built, and more easily afforded by the people of Canada than right now in 1955. I say that the building of the South Saskatchewan dam and the great irrigation projects connected therewith is not mainly a matter of financing,
3794	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project and the cost should not constitute any difficulty for the federal government. Why? You should not look at the amount of money it takes, you should look at the resources of Canada to see if Canada can produce such a project within the next ten years. During the war we were told by Mr. Ilsley, a former minister of finance, that cost would not be allowed to stand in the way of a maximum war effort, so the financial cost of the dam and other important projects should not be allowed to stand in the way.
I say that we have the resources. We also have people idle in Canada, the latest figure being over 600,000. I may not have seen as many freight trains go by on the main lines of the railroads as have other hon. members in this house and therefore I was perhaps more surprised than other hon. members would be had they seen what I saw yesterday. Just outside of Sudbury I saw a train going west on the main line of the C.P.R. with dozens of men back riding the rods. I have not seen that myself for some fifteen years. There were dozens of them on flat cars which I saw yesterday just west of Sudbury.
I am sure that those men and countless thousands of men in Canada like them who are unemployed would be pleased to accept a job building the South Saskatchewan dam. I contend that when you put your unemployed to work it does not cost the country anything. The manpower is available, and we know we can get the resources as far as machinery is concerned. The main implement and machinery producing factories in Canada are working today at half capacity or less. There is no industry which faces a greater current unemployment than the Canadian farm implement industry.
We hope that there will not be a crop catastrophe in western Canada again this year, but there may be and certainly the purchasing power available today in western Canada is only a fraction of what it was a few years ago. The demand for farm machinery likely to prevail in Canada within the next twelve months is bound to be a whole lot less than was the demand for machinery in 1951 and 1952 and even in 1953.
So let us use our idle machinery industry to produce the large scale construction equipment necessary to build this dam. Let us put hundreds of Canadians who are now unemployed to work building this valuable project. Let us do something in the next few years which will protect this large section of Canada from something which we know is bound to happen in the future, namely, further periods of widespread crop failure.
IMr. Argue.]

There is another reason why this dam should be built. Saskatchewan is short of electrical energy. Experts tell us that the building of the South Saskatchewan dam would provide 400 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year, a huge amount of electricity. This is something the people of Saskatchewan need as quickly as they can get it, not just for those years in which there might be bad crops but for each and every year of the years that lie ahead.
For all of these reasons I expect that opposition members will give unanimous support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I hope that some of our western Liberal members of parliament, in particular Saskatchewan Liberal members, will stand by the interests of the people who sent them here and support this reasonable and worth-while amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the appeal which has been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), in view of the fact that I am a member from Saskatchewan, I feel I should say a few words at this stage. In the first place, the hon. member in waving his arms and getting very excited about the South Saskatchewan dam managed to get a little away from the actual facts.


An hon. Member:: He never was close to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: The South Saskatchewan river dam was not known as such to any person either inside or outside this house until 1946, which is not 20 years ago. The Minister of Agriculture was responsible for trying to find a place where the dam could be built and this had to be done before talking about building a dam. No one else in this house was responsible for those activities; the responsibility was that of the Department of Agriculture and it was assumed by the Department of Agriculture.
Under its activities in connection with the P.F.R.A. it endeavoured to find out whether there was some place on the South Saskatchewan where a dam could be built, if it could be built, and just what the effects would be. That was found out by 1946 and since 1946 we have been discussing the possibility of building it. At no time have I taken any other position than that it should be built. I have not said it is going to be built. I think every hon. member on all sides of the house will agree with that. I have constantly advocated the building of the dam and I still advocate the building of the dam.

. As I said a few moments ago when interrupting, I am still convinced that some time the government of Canada is going to build the South Saskatchewan river dam and I expect that the government of Canada that does build it will be a Liberal government. I have no hesitation in saying that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better get started soon.


James Garfield Gardiner: That may be the opinion of some people, but there are others who have a different opinion. I know the reason why this resolution is brought forward at this time. I know too why an association between the official opposition and the C.C.F. comes to light in the proposal which is made.
There are some people who think that there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan before very long. The fact that one has been brought about on a few hours' notice in the province of Alberta has given some people reason to think that maybe the same thing will happen in Saskatchewan. So an effort is being made to make issues out of everything of which an issue can be made.
At the moment the question before this house is not the South Saskatchewan river dam; the question before this house at the present time is whether or not the house has confidence in this government. Everyone who knows anything about the rules of the house knows that when a motion is made to go into committee of supply and an amendment is moved, that amendment is nothing more or less than a motion of want of confidence in the government.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Page the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer).


James Garfield Gardiner: That may be all right. Page the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek or anybody else, but I have been in this house as long as most hon. members and I have been in other legislatures much longer than any other hon. member of the house and I know what the rules mean.
I know that when an opposition-it does not make any difference whether it is an official opposition or whether it is the C.C.F. or whether it is the Social Credit or what opposition it is-get up, on an occasion when a motion is made in this house to go into committee of supply, and make some other kind of motion, some other amendment, or even simply oppose that motion there is only one thing in their minds and that is that they do not have confidence in the government of this country. So the only thing upon which members are going to be voting, the only thing upon which I am going to be 50433-2401
16. 1955	3795
South Saskatchewan River Project voting, if this amendment is voted upon, is whether I have confidence in them.


Charles Edward Johnston: Have you?


James Garfield Gardiner: I certainly have and I would not have any confidence whatever in a Social Credit policy, no matter where they set it up. The fact is that there is an election campaign on at the present time in Ontario which involves the Conservative party and there is one on in Alberta, which concerns the Social Credit party. Some of our friends hope that there may be one on soon that affects the C.C.F. party.


An hon. Member:: Are you worried?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I am not a bit worried. As a matter of fact, I would not be at all worried, if I lived in the province of Alberta, with the issue that is involved out there at the present time. Being a Liberal, I would not be in any way worried.


An hon. Member:: Who made the issue?


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not make any difference who made the issue. The people who are in the government and have done the things they have done may make a possible issue. If I were living in Alberta I would make the issue based on what the government has been doing during the period they were in office.


Hazen Robert Argue: When are you going out to campaign?


James Garfield Gardiner: I may be out there long before you think.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it would be a good idea.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I am going to say here this afternoon is that a member who votes for the amendment before the house at the present time-it does not matter whether he is a member from Saskatchewan or anywhere else-is voting on what amounts to a vote of want of confidence in this government and is not voting on any other issue. They are bringing up the question of the South Saskatchewan river dam as a means of trying to win over the votes of a few people, or if you do not win them over you can go out into the constituencies and say that so and so voted against the dam. Nobody is going to tell anyone in Saskatchewan that I am against the dam. Nobody is going to be able to tell anyone in Saskatchewan that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is against the dam. Nobody is going to be able to tell anyone in Saskatchewan that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle or the

South Saskatchewan River Project hon. member tor Rosthern or the hon. member for Meadow Lake is against the dam. They are all for the dam.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nobody can say that the Prime Minister is for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact of the matter is that they are not going to vote against this government because they do not build the dam tomorrow. There are times for doing everything.


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow never comes.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what this motion says, to build it immediately. The only issue that is clear when you read the amendment is the question as to whether or not the government should proceed to build the dam immediately, and the only thing that is in the minds of those who are moving it and of those who were going to support it is the question as to whether or not they can work up some political issues that might be used in Ontario and in Alberta and possibly in the province of Saskatchewan. There is nothing else in their minds. Resolutions of this kind before this house do not help to build the Saskatchewan dam. The fact that the majority of necessity will vote against the words does not help. They do not help to do anything except to create political attitudes and political sentiments of one kind or another that can be utilized for the purpose of trying to gain votes or lose votes for some person. So I want to make it perfectly plain that I am going to vote against the amendment. I want to make it plain at the same time that 1 am in favour of the South Saskatchewan river dam. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre knows that if it were an issue that involved the people sitting in his group he would be speaking and voting as I am speaking and voting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also know that there have been occasions when amendments to go into supply have been carried in this house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ask my friends who come from the province of Saskatchewan how many times similar motions made in the Saskatchewan provincial legislature by opposition members, perhaps for the same purpose as this amendment is being moved, were voted for by the C.C.F. members on those occasions. Not at all, of course. In making this amendment, they have no idea at all of assisting in building the South Saskatchewan dam. I have made it plain that I am both in favour of the government and in favour of the dam. When I vote I am going to vote in favour of the government, believing that if the dam is ever built it will be built by a Liberal government.
[Mr. Gardiner. 1


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the minister has spoken just before me on this important matter. I am glad that he said some of the things he did say, although on more sober reflection he may wish that he had left some of those things unsaid. As he gets a little older and more mellowed, he is getting more careless.
To begin with, as I listened to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introducing the subject for discussion this afternoon, I was a little puzzled when I heard him talk briefly about wheat and then bring the matter around to the question of the South Saskatchewan dam. I wondered if he was going to propose that he take the surplus wheat out there and build the dam with it. That would be one good connection between the subjects that were being discussed. Then it occurred to me that perhaps he really did want to have before the house the question of the building of the South Saskatchewan dam as a means of improving the farm situation. I was pleased, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you did suggest that we discuss first the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam and leave the wheat question until later.
Now I should like to deal briefly with some of the things the Minister of Agriculture said. I want to assure him that I am not talking about this matter this afternoon for any political purpose whatsoever. If he thinks that everybody in this house plays politics every time he gets up to say something about a matter, I think he should reflect a little on some of the things that have happened in the past, and I am going to remind him particularly of one. I believe it was in 1946 when a certain resolution was brought into this house asking the house to give its approval to the discontinuance of milk subsidies that had been in effect during the war, subsidies that had proved to be very effective.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to that, I might say that I do not remember it personally because, I believe, I was over in England at the time.


Solon Earl Low: That may be so, but at any rate the resolution was brought in. Members from several sides of the house, the Liberal side as well as the opposition side, spoke very vigorously against the removal of those subsidies. I recall very distinctly how, after every person in the debate had expressed himself strongly opposed to it, and it looked as if, when the matter came to a vote, the resolution would be defeated, the Prime Minister came into the house, stood in his place, looked around and said to bis followers, "This is not a free vote". All of the

good boys on the Liberal side of the house who had spoken actively and vigorously against the removal of the milk subsidies, when the vote came, voted solidly for the resolution and against their convictions. It looked to me as if the minister today is a little afraid that some of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan might perhaps get up in this debate and express their keen desire to see the South Saskatchewan dam built, and for that reason wants to get a word of warning to them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) twice in his speech challenged me to get up and say how I was going to vote on this issue-it had nothing to do with what the other men were going to do but how I was going to vote-and I answered him.


Solon Earl Low: You went further than that. Before you told anybody how you were going to vote, you made it abundantly clear to your supporters on the other side of the house that if they voted or even spoke in favour of this thing they would be playing on the basis of politics and would be voting want of confidence in your government. That is what you did.


James Garfield Gardiner: I still recall that, when my friend was a member of the government in Alberta, that is exactly the position he took.


Solon Earl Low: No, that is not the position he took under any circumstances. I challenge the minister, now that he has made the statement, to bring forth one bit of evidence to that effect. I will just challenge him to go through the record and bring forward one bit of evidence to support what he has now said. He cannot do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never known of a session of any parliament anywhere in the British Empire where somebody in the opposition did not move the kind of resolution that is now before us; and I know that every member of every government, no matter what the party, has always voted as I am suggesting that they ought to vote.


Mr. Hodgson:: Who is making this speech?


Solon Earl Low: Yes; one begins to wonder about that. But I want to assure the minister that I am not speaking this afternoon for any particular political reason at all. If it is politics to express one's opinion or his deep conviction about a matter, then I am guilty. But I did not raise the subject because I wanted to make an issue in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta or anywhere else. I may say quite frankly that my opinion with respect to this matter that is being discussed
South Saskatchewan River Project would not get me any votes in Alberta; that is a cinch. Under present circumstances I certainly would not try to inject an issue into the Saskatchewan situation.
When the minister talks about issues, let me say this. Believe me, his party in the province of Alberta have been so utterly bankrupt of ideas that they had to seize upon some things on which they thought they could make an issue, and they got caught with their political pants down. The only thing in the world that Mr. Manning could do was simply to say, "All right, boys; if that's the way you want it, that's the way you're going to get it". That is the way they will have it. But there has been nothing but obstruction. There has been nothing but silly charges, unsupported by anything but the flimsiest of technicalities. I think it would have been better if my hon. friend had stayed off that subject because before the next month or six weeks are over he will have reason to give the matter very serious reflection and wish he had not done so.
I want to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not trying to create an issue. The issue has been created, and I will tell you when it was created. It was created a number of years ago when, for what I think were purely political purposes, the question of building the South Saskatchewan dam was introduced into Canadian politics by the Liberal party when I do not think they had the slightest intention whatsoever of building that dam within the foreseeable future. I am satisfied-just as satisfied as I am of the fact that I stand here- that they were nothing but idle promises designed for one purpose only, namely to get votes, to lead the people to believe that they were going to do it. As my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia has said, the South Saskatchewan river dam, over a period of a great many years, has been made a political football. That is something that should not have been done.
However, it is because I wanted to express my point of view that I got into the discussion here this afternoon. In times like these, in days when there are nothing but floods in a country, I think it is hard to appreciate how important irrigation can be. Many people out there say, "Let us get the water out of the country and never talk about it again". I understand how the people feel down in the Qu'Appelle country and in the other areas recently flooded by the terrible storms in Saskatchewan. We all understand that when you have a surfeit of things you are not too greatly interested in them. If you get a good meal of potatoes, you do not want any more potatoes for a little while-

South Saskatchewan River Project It is the same with water. But in the cycles of drought that occur in the western country there comes a time when irrigation water is just like lifeblood. I am sure the time will come when the people of Saskatchewan will want that water badly. As a matter of fact, over many decades they have needed the water that can be supplied from the South Saskatchewan river through the building of a dam to water these parched acres and to ensure something like stability in agriculture out in that country.
I think that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) wanted to say something about the serious decline in farm income and perhaps to use that fact as one of his arguments for the building of this dam. During the past several weeks, in the course of the budget debate and others, a number of things have been said about the serious decline in farm cash income. My colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) the other day, I think, mentioned the fact that since 1951 there has been a decline of $1,025 million or some such figure in the net income of the farmers of this country. That is an extremely serious decline in farm income.
I understand that in this past year farm income made up only about 6 per cent of the total national income, although the farmers as a class make up about 16 per cent of the total population of Canada. That is far below the fair share of farming people as a whole. Some means will simply have to be found to bring that farm income up so that farmers generally have their fair share. If they make up 16 per cent of the population, then they are entitled to something like 16 per cent of the national income in Canada. That is the position that we take.
What has that matter to do with the question in point? The serious decline in farm income during the past few years has occurred largely as the result of the problems associated with the production and the marketing of wheat. Everybody knows that with the three bumper crops in a row there were created problems which made it exceedingly difficult to keep farm cash income at a level that would make it possible for the farmers to enjoy prosperity and to buy the goods that are flowing from the factories. The failure of this government to establish markets and to take advantage of market situations that were available throughout the world has materially complicated the farm income situation.
I remember when the Minister of Trade and Commerce scorned the idea of accepting soft currency to a limited extent in return for wheat. I remember when he said, "No; no (country would be prepared to deal on a basis
.
of that kind". Many foolish things were said at that time also about Britain being unprepared to buy our wheat and to pay for it to a certain degree in pounds sterling.
The fact now is that Japan, Israel, Sweden and a number of other countries have already accepted substantial amounts of wheat from the United States and have been able to pay for it in their own currencies, which currencies were left in their countries to be invested to help them to bring up production of those things which the people in the United States would want to buy.
It has been admitted in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that our wheat marketing situation in Canada has been complicated to a large degree by the methods that are being used by the United States. That is one of them. There is no reason in the world why Canada should not have been preserving her position as the outstanding wheat country in the world by accepting to a degree those soft currencies. There is also no reason why we should not have been leaving those currencies on deposit in those countries from which we are prepared to accept it in order to help those countries to bring up production of the things which Canada would want to buy, and there are plenty of them. But we sit still and say no, we are only going to accept one thing, cash or hard currency, United States dollars under the Bretton Woods agreement. As a consequence we find ourselves taking a back seat to some of these other countries because we are not courageous in our trade outlook. We seem to be frightened to death about trying something new, something other countries are perfectly willing to try and make succeed. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that has complicated our situation in this country to a very great degree, and has accounted to some extent for the decline in our farm income.
One could easily say, of course, that we are raising too much wheat. I suppose under present policies of marketing maybe, but if we are, and if the government at the same time is not going to use any vision and imagination in its marketing policies and in devising new means to get our wheat into the hands of people who need it and want to use it, then it seems to me the next best thing would be for us to encourage our people in the diversification of farming operations. One means of encouraging them to diversify their farming operations would be to have them use irrigation water, and that is exactly the kind of thing envisioned in the protest now before the house.
Saskatchewan has had a very difficult time for many years. Without question Saskatchewan is the greatest wheat province in

Canada, but there are years when Saskatchewan has a most difficult time when the lands become parched because of drought. When the lands of the wheat area are parched the farmers suffer and production is practically nil.
One way to help that situation is to make use of our water resources, and the building of the South Saskatchewan dam would make it possible to water thousands of fertile acres in that province that are capable of producing some of the finest foodstuffs in the world. I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that years ago the Lethbridge area in southern Alberta was about the same as the southern Saskatchewan area. It was subject to these frequent drought cycles, and when they came that part of the country was very hard hit and the people felt it. But years ago we took advantage of the possibilities that were available to us to develop our water resources in that province. We developed large irrigation areas surrounding the city of Lethbridge; and for the past several years now, as a consequence of what has been done in the development of irrigation, the per capita income tax payment of the people of the city of Lethbridge to the government has topped that of every other city in Canada. Why? Simply because Lethbridge is in the very centre of a large irrigated area, and the irrigation farming that goes on in that area contributes dollars year in and year out.
There is very little, if any, failure, because of the stabilizing influence of the water on the soil. If one cares to look into the record he can find recent reports in such magazines as Western Business indicating how important that area has become in the production of foods, especially garden crops. It is expected that within the next few years a $70 million a year frozen vegetable industry will be centred in the city of Lethbridge and its immediate vicinity. There are now several fairly large plants that are processing garden vegetables like peas, beans, carrots, broccoli and that sort of thing. Experts say that the long hours of sunshine, the quality of the soil and the abundance of water in that area make it possible to produce the finest peas in the world.
The same thing could be said of southern Saskatchewan. The soil is not different. It has the long hours of sunshine, and I often wish we could get some of it while we are here in Ottawa. There is an abundance of water in the South Saskatchewan river which, if scientifically applied to the soil, would make it possible for the farmers there to develop the diversified farming activities
South Saskatchewan River Project that would transform the whole country out of all semblance to its present state.
Having experienced that sort of thing in Alberta, having seen what can be done, that is one of the reasons I have constantly supported the expenditures necessary to build the South Saskatchewan irrigation project. I must say right here I have not been too vocal in supporting the idea of power development. I am not certain in my own mind whether the government of Canada should make contributions to the provinces for the development of power. I am still open to conviction, but I certainly have no doubt about my stand and the stand of my group in the house so far as support of the irrigation project itself is concerned.
One could talk for three or four hours about the evidence available to show how important it would be from the national point of view to build the dam and develop the diversified farming activities that are possible in that whole area of southern Saskatchewan. If we are going to get away from the disabilities attached to a wheat economy we have to give consideration to the production of other crops that can be sold in this country. If that area were under irrigation certainly the production of coarse grains would make it possible to finish more beef. The production of garden crops for processing and freezing to replace the millions of dollars worth we now bring in from the United States every year would be enough justification for the government to lay out the money necessary to build the dam.
I am satisfied in my own mind, too, that the government of Saskatchewan is ready to provide its share of the necessary expenditures. I think the premier of that province has indicated on several occasions lately that he is prepared to accept his share of the cost if the federal government will move and adopt something like the formula adopted in the development of such projects in the province of Alberta. Not to multiply words, may I say that I am surprised, in fact I am disgusted, at the stand the Minister of Agriculture took this afternoon. I think it was childish in the extreme. It was a stand we did not expect from a first-line minister, one who has "right honourable" attached to his name. It seems to me he should have made a statesmanlike speech on the whole matter, indicating how important the project is. Instead he gets up and says to his supporters: Now look, boys, remember this is not the South Saskatchewan dam; this is a vote of want of confidence in the government because the opposition is trying to make political capital out of it.

South Saskatchewan River Project
I am not afraid of that sort of thing at all. You can say what you like about it. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) can go out and say what he likes about how people voted, but let me tell him and everybody else that I am going to vote for the amendment because I believe in the South Saskatchewan dam. I believe it should be developed and I will vote for it in exactly the same way as I would have voted with my colleagues on the question of family allowances if I had been in the house in 1944. He cannot go out and tell the people that we did not vote for them or that we voted against them. The minister told his colleagues not to give these fellows a chance to go out in the country and say that they voted against the South Saskatchewan dam, but I am going to support the amendment.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Irvin William Studer: Did he not vote to defeat the government that brought in the proposal to establish family allowances in 1944-or rather the members of the Social Credit party?


Solon Earl Low: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This amendment deals with the South Saskatchewan dam. The hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: In reference to what the hon. member for Peace River has said about the intention of the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke in this house, I would suggest that perhaps a fairer interpretation to put upon those remarks would not be that it was necessary for the minister to tell the members of this house just what would be the effect of carrying an amendment like this, but that it was to indicate to the people of the country exactly what is the situation. It is not a surprising thing that he should have done so, in view of the use that has been made by the C.C.F. party in Saskatchewan over the past 10 years of similar votes in this house.
Everyone who has followed things in Saskatchewan knows that motions like this are made repeatedly, and if the program of the government is to be carried on they have to be voted down, because they indicate lack of confidence in the whole program of the government. The members of the C.C.F. move motions like this and then go out and misrepresent them in Saskatchewan, indicating that members who have expressed confidence in the government voted against the subject matter of such amendments. Over and over

again it has been suggested that such members were betraying the people who elected them. I think that was the reason the Minister of Agriculture said what he did, to indicate that the carrying of this motion would necessitate the resignation of the government or a general election, and would not promote the building of the dam.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Does he remember how he voted on the milk subsidy amendment in 1946?


Walter Adam Tucker: I was in the house, and it was indicated that hon. members should vote as they saw fit. It was not regarded as a vote of confidence in the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it is possible to have a free vote on that kind of a motion.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the government sees fit to so announce. The government has taken a definite position on this motion, and if it were carried it would mean that the government's announced policy had been defeated. If the government does not see fit to take that attitude-


Mr. Nicholson:: Why not?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is a matter of policy for the government to decide. We operate under a system of responsible government. The government of the day announces a certain policy, and no group in the house can pick and choose in connection with that policy. This is one reason our system works so satisfactorily. The government adopts a policy which it considers fair to all parts of the country. If each part of the country in turn were given the right to pick and choose in connection with that policy, government under our system would become utterly impossible. Any student of constitutional government knows that quite well.
The government has taken the attitude that the South Saskatchewan dam project has not been demonstrated to the government's satisfaction to be something on which the government at present could recommend the spending of the necessary money. The government has taken that position alongside many other matters which it has decided and about which we in the west are very satisfied. Under our system of government, members have to decide whether or not they are going to support the government and take the policy as a whole, including perhaps some things they would like to have changed, or whether they are going to vote against the government and throw out that policy.
I sat as leader of the opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature, and no C.C.F. member here can tell me that C.C.F. members

act any differently in carrying on under our system of responsible government than members do in this parliament. Over and over again I have seen amendments moved which had the effect of indicating lack of confidence in the government. Repeatedly I saw C.C.F. members vote against those amendments because they wanted to keep the government in office; they believed in the government's policy as a whole. They believed that when the time came, if those things embodied in the amendments were good things the government would introduce them, and they were not going to throw out the government and its whole program on a motion of the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? I was wondering whether he thought the government would be greatly endangered if Liberal members from Saskatchewan were to vote as they liked?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am going to deal with that. I did not interrupt the hon. member, and I was going to come to that in a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; that is fine.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was dealing with the
attitude taken by the C.C.F. party. There is no use in the members of that party trying to pretend that there is anything out of the way in Liberal members saying they are ready to support the government, as they are, on a motion like this which expresses a feeling that something should be done right away that the government has indicated it is not ready to do. The C.C.F. know very well that at different times in Saskatchewan their members of the legislature could have been accused of being against increasing old age pensions; against increasing supplementary allowances for old age pensions; against giving bigger grants to school districts to help keep down taxes; against doing away with public revenue taxes, and against many measures that practically all their members indicated they favoured. In order that confidence in the government be continued, they voted against motions like this.
I believe that we should have a certain amount of honesty in connection with these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: What in the world is the use of the C.C.F. pretending that when we vote on a motion like this, which involves the existence of the government, that vote indicates we have done something that shows we are not favourable to the building of this dam. There is no use in them saying that.
South Saskatchewan River Project One of the things I do say to them is that the misuse of votes like this in their propaganda throughout the country may have gotten them votes in the past, but basically people are not so easily fooled. In the long run, people are not as easily fooled as hon. members opposite may think. As I see it, people in Saskatchewan are turning against the C.C.F. party-


Mr. Ellis:: You have been saying that since 1944.


Walter Adam Tucker: They have been gradually turning since 1944. The time will come when the C.C.F. will be turned out. One of the reasons the people are turning against them today is this dishonest attitude which exists even in this house.
It was very interesting when the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek indicated that by voting against the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which at that time embodied family allowances, they were voting against government policy. Had that vote carried the government would have been defeated, and that measure could not have been enacted at that time.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mouniain):: You
had better tell us about your stand on the Saskatchewan dam.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is a logical attitude. The suggestion has been put forward by the C.C.F. that when people vote to support government policy they are voting for something else altogether. I do not think there is any doubt that if this motion carried, the government having taken the position it had, there would be an immediate demand that the government resign and go to the country. By long established constitutional practice there would be nothing else for the government to do. I ask you, would that further the building of the South Saskatchewan dam? It certainly would no further it, not one little bit. And that would be the effect of carrying this amendment; there is no question about it.
The hon. member for Prince Albert asked a perfectly reasonable question. The suggestion was that if we from Saskatchewan were to vote for this amendment it would not in any way endanger the government, because it was suggested the government has a sufficient majority to carry the main motion without the votes from Saskatchewan. The hon. member asked a perfectly logical question, one that is asked by many people in the country from time to time.
I do not propose to try to answer it to the satisfaction of everybody; but I do want to
3802	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project speak about my own attitude toward a proposition of that kind. I believe in our system of responsible government. I believe that in a country as widespread as Canada you must have a government from a party that is national in its appeal, and people in all parts of the country must be prepared to get behind the policies adopted by that government so long as it is trying to do what it thinks is right and fair to all parts of the country. If members of the House of Commons begin to vote in regional blocs and by provinces, according to the wishes and desires of particular blocs, and if the House of Commons were thus to break into regional parties then government, as we understand it today, government functioning on a basis of doing what is best for the country as a whole, would be utterly impossible.
Believing in that as I do; believing in our system of government; believing that the Liberal party has on the whole the right policies for Canada; believing that the government is doing a good job with those policies,
I am not going to be diverted for a single minute in expressing my support. Why do I say this? Because a part of the country, such as western Canada from which we come, and which sends to parliament only a minority of members, would be the first to suffer by the kind of policy hon. members opposite suggest.


An hon. Member:: Is that responsible
government?


Walter Adam Tucker: If each member is going to vote only to suit his own individual area, or only to further an idea he may have at heart, and without regard for the over-all consideration, how can we in Saskatchewan ever hope to get anything? We have to go along with our fellow members from the rest of Canada in supporting things they believe are right, so long as what they ask is within reason, if in turn we ask them to support the things we think are right for us. And if we are not ready to go along with them and work together as a team, how can we expect them to vote for various items which, while helpful to us, would lose them votes in their own constituencies?
For example, I have no doubt that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, under which this year $28 million is to be paid out to western Canada, might stand in that position, because there is no measure of that kind for any other part of Canada. It affects only the prairie provinces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about helping the gold mines?


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not interrupt you when you were speaking. I do not mind a reasonable question, but this mumbling and muttering from your seat is not proper.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the hon.
member for Kootenay East.


Walter Adam Tucker: You can tell him that. Perhaps you should tell him, if you wish. If we are to have orderly debate, and are to have an opportunity to listen to what is being said, then an hon. member should not be mumbling from his seat, as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has done.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would like to ask the hon. member this question: What about the assistance to gold mines?


Walter Adam Tucker: What has the assistance to gold mines got to do with this subject?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member said there was no other area receiving support of this kind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should point out that we are discussing the amendment of the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Walter Adam Tucker: In what I have said I believe I have shown justification for the attitude I take in a matter of this kind. If one belongs to a national party, then one must accept the policy of the party and support it, and try to have that policy implemented from time to time, so as to deal fairly with all parts of the country, or it would be impossible to have a national policy or a national program. It might be necessary under a national policy to do something for certain parts of the country, even though other parts might consider such expenditures of money unwarranted.
We think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a good measure; we think it is justified. I have no doubt that in certain parts of Canada some might ask; why is the federal government spending so much money on this project? Perhaps the deficit after this year will be about $80 million, and someone might say, "Why should we spend so much money to help the farmers on the prairies in western Canada, in the event of crop failure, when we do not spend sums of money like that for farmers in other parts of Canada?"


An hon. Member:: Or the fishermen.


Walter Adam Tucker: The answer is that, bearing in mind what is being done for other parts of Canada, this has been considered fair for the prairie section of western Canada. We are building a great nation, and this can be done only by all parts being willing to support those things they believe are good for the country as a whole. This cannot be

done by listening to sectional appeals, and to those who say, "We are against this, because it does not put anything in the pockets of our people; however, we are prepared to do this other thing because it does put money in the pockets of our people." Do that, if you wish, but do not go out and misrepresent your vote in the country.


Alfred Claude Ellis: People in glass houses.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) has referred to people in glass houses. I absolutely defy him to show any time in my political life that I have misrepresented a vote either in the House of Commons or in the legislature.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What about family allowances?


Walter Adam Tucker: If we cannot sit in the House of Commons as members who have been elected as honourable and honest men, then I for one would rather stay at home.
I make no apology for voting against this amendment. I do not blame the hon. member for Prince Albert for having moved it, because that is his job as a member of the opposition. It is one of his duties to focus attention on such matters. But, having had some part in the formation of Liberal policy, having played some part at national conventions and council meetings to have things written into the program of that party, I am convinced that I have a duty to perform if I believe that certain things we have decided on should be done. If I can convince my fellow Liberal members that something further should be done, well and good. It can be done most quickly in that way, for then I believe that as a party we will proceed to do it, instead of acting as splinter groups. I realize one could be elected more easily in his own constituency by taking some other course.
However, I believe one has to work in co-operation with others to make any headway in this world. Surely in Canada we must be prepared to work with our fellow citizens from other parts of Canada.
An attack was made upon the Prime Minister. I would like to say just a word about that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: A pretty touchy subject.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is not touchy at all, I may tell the hon. member for Regina City, for the Prime Minister is a man who has been endorsed by the people of Canada by overwhelming majorities both in 1949 and 1953, and he needs no apology from me.


Alfred Claude Ellis: But he is getting it.
South Saskatchewan River Project


Walter Adam Tucker: No, he is getting no apology. I am just dealing with the silly attack made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) against that great man, the Prime Minister. I believe the Prime Minister received that great endorsation because the people of Canada know he is a great and broad-minded Canadian who will treat all parts of Canada fairly, whether they be the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the prairies or British Columbia. That is why he was so endorsed.
The Prime Minister's attitude in regard to this question concerning which the amendment is moved was that he is not yet convinced that the time has come to recommend immediately going ahead with the project.
I am satisfied that if we in the Liberal party intend to regard ourselves as a great national party we should be ready to support things which concern other parts of the country, and which perhaps are of no particular concern to us personally. Then if we have a good case we can go to the Prime Minister and his advisers with it. If we are to be a national party with a national policy we must be fair to all, and on this basis the time will come when a proposition such as this will be accepted.
I think the results would be much better and quicker; I think there is more hope in a policy like that than to take the attitude that we believe in the Liberal party, that we believe in the Liberal program, but should something come up which does not go at once every inch as far as we would like it to go, then we will vote against it. For example, there was the recent great disaster in western Canada, in Saskatchewan in particular, from flooding. Our provincial representatives are here today asking for help because they consider they are part of Canada. In all these matters there should be a national approach, not a narrow provincial approach.
It is on that basis that we can hope to appeal to our fellow Canadians to give us a fair deal in all things. One of the reasons I am happy at all times to support the Prime Minister is that I have implicit faith in his sincere desire as a fair-minded and great Canadian to be fair to all parts of Canada.
I am ready to show that I have faith in him, and I am not ready to withdraw that faith in connection with any individual item as long as he gives the leadership he has given to our country in the last seven years, when it has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. We have prospered and other parts of the country have prospered. A policy has been
3804	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project followed in some cases of opposing things which Ontario and Quebec would have liked, but in the interests of Canada as a whole it was felt the steps should not be taken.
The defeat of the government at this time would endanger the budget, with its reduction in taxes. It would endanger the governmental attitude toward tariffs. There is pressure for tariff protection from different parts of the country to help the unemployment situation in those areas, but that pressure has been resisted for the good of all Canada. What kind of a westerner would I be if I turned against a government which has taken a stand on things like that?
Then there are the fiscal agreements. I wonder what Saskatchewan would do without those fiscal agreements, if they were not maintained in force. There are people in Canada today who take a narrow regional attitude, and who would be ready to do away with these fiscal agreements under which we as a province get, without collecting a bit of taxation ourselves, a total of $26 million. To raise that amount of money we would have to put oppressive taxation on our people. Am I to vote on a regional basis and endanger such things as these? Tomorrow someone might ask why they should pay taxes for the people in Saskatchewan, and where would we in Saskatchewan be without these agreements? I have no compunction in saying that under our system of government I support the government. I am proud to support the government which has stood against pressures to increase tariffs and do away with these fiscal agreements.
The hon. member who made this attack on the Prime Minister has indicated that the Prime Minister placed obstacles in the way of progress. What did he mention? He mentioned health insurance and unemployment. As to unemployment, the Liberal party has put forward in its budget and its expanding trade policy measures which have brought about less unemployment than there would be under any other system. Then the Prime Minister has taken the attitude-


Douglas Scott Harkness: How about getting back to the dam?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with the question involved in this amendment which is a lack of confidence in the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it is the dam; we want to hear about the dam.


Walter Adam Tucker: Apparently the hon. member has not been listening to my remarks. I am showing why I do not propose to support this amendment, and for the moment I am dealing with unemployment. I was about to go on to say that the proposition put forward


by the Prime Minister was a definite step forward in dealing with this problem. He said that you cannot separate the unemployables from the employables and begin to batter these people back and forth. He made the suggestion that they should all be dealt with in a proper way, with Canadians sharing the burden on a fair basis as among the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. In my opinion that is a definite and humanitarian step forward.
That is what the Prime Minister suggested, and then the hon. member for Assiniboia actually had the colossal nerve to say that a forward and humanitarian step like this indicates that the Prime Minister is not in favour of progress.
Then there is the question of health insurance. What is the attitude there? It is that the provinces must agree in this matter because it is under provincial jurisdiction. My hon. friends opposite get very impatient with that argument but the fact that they are impatient with that argument is the reason they will never get into power in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have more proof of the decline of the C.C.F. than my hon. friends have. If you take the attitude that the provinces are to be overridden, that their voices are not to be listened to in any way in connection with matters within their jurisdiction, then that is bound to happen. Most people in this country believe in our federal system of government. They believe in the basis upon which we were established as a nation, so much so that they will not support a party that is ready to ignore the provinces in that way. The only way we will make progress is by persuading people in all parts of Canada that progress is necessary and desirable.
I well remember the attitude of our former leader in regard to old age pensions. He took the attitude-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: hesitate to interrupt any hon. member. In my opinion the hon. member who has the floor is perfectly within his rights in listing what he regards as the possible consequences of the passage of this amendment, and using those as reasons for voting against the amendment. But I do not think the hon. member is keeping within the spirit of the rule dealing with discussion before the house goes into committee of supply if he develops in detail the various consequences which he thinks will follow upon the passage of this motion of non-confidence. I am not suggesting that the hon. member has been out of order up to the present in listing the possible

consequences of the passage of this amendment, but I do suggest that he is coming dangerously near being out of order in going into these points at length.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. There are just two other points I wish to make. I said something about being satisfied and proud to support the Liberal party. I took some part in the convention of 1948. I was on the resolutions committee, and we spent four days working out the resolutions. If anyone will examine what this government has done in carrying out the resolutions passed at that convention, they will find that the government has carried out substantially every one of them.
So far as I am concerned, this is the only party that does make this national appeal. I had some part in getting some of those resolutions adopted. I feel that if anyone who belongs to the Liberal party can get a resolution adopted by the Liberal party they are really accomplishing something worth while, because the Liberal party is a national party and they are getting those things adopted as part of the program of the governing party. So I have no hesitation in saying on this particular matter that I feel it my duty, as a person who believes that the Liberal policy has been good for Canada as a whole, certainly good as a whole for western Canada, to vote to maintain the government in office. In regard to the dam, I would say this.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are back to that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with the amendment of my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Good.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was going to say with regard to the question of the dam that I am very much in favour of it, and I hope that in the not too distant future the government will decide to go ahead with the dam. But I do point out to my hon. friend opposite, in the first place, that if the C.C.F. government had not got a report from Professor Cass-Beggs which threw doubt upon the feasibility of the dam on the ground that electricity could be generated more cheaply from the use of natural gas and perhaps later from atomic energy; if they had not sent forward that report to the federal government and left it with them without any suggestion that they disagreed with it, I doubt very much that a royal commission would ever have been appointed, and I think the dam would have been under construction at the present time. The C.C.F. government employed Cass-Beggs and then sent forward that report without
South Saskatchewan River Project any comments whatever, certainly not indicating that they disagreed with it until months later.
It ill behooves the members of that party, the ones who really threw the monkey wrench into this proposition, to make as much fuss about it as they have. I was asked on the floor of the legislature whether I objected to Cass-Beggs expressing these honest opinions of his about the dam, if it were true that this was worth only as much from the standpoint of development as he thought it was; whether it was the right thing that they should send it forward. I admit that it was the right thing to send it forward. But they are the authors of that step. That is one of the things that must be borne in mind by every member from Saskatchewan.
The provincial government is proposing to spend over $70 million on the project. Personally I hope the day will come when a dam will be built without any such colossal expenditure like that by the provincial government. If the provincial government were to use that money in draining northern areas, building roads into that great mineral-bearing part of the province, and otherwise opening up that area, $70 million would enable a considerable amount of work to be done in generally opening up our province. When the time comes to go ahead with this project I hope some sort of arrangement can be worked out whereby the province of Saskatchewan, with its limited financial resources, will not have to pay $70 million odd into it, that it will be a national project in much larger measure than is suggested today by the premier of Saskatchewan.
I am looking at this question as a member from Saskatchewan; thinking what a load of debt such an expenditure could put on the people of our province-less than a million people-and what must be done in regard to building roads and opening up our great north country. We have the same type of north country as have northern Quebec and northern Ontario. We cannot afford to overspend a single dollar. My hope is that when the time comes to build this proposed dam it will be done as a national proposition, without the province of Saskatchewan being asked to invest any more than half of the amount proposed at the present time.
So, Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation I say I am very pleased to show that I have confidence in the government by voting against this motion, the carrying of which would defeat the government and necessitate its resignation or a general election, which I do not think my constituents want, which I do not think Saskatchewan wants, and which I am sure Canada as a whole does not want.

South Saskatchewan River Project


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment very briefly on this motion. I intend to support the motion of the hon. member for Prince Albert. I intend to do so, first, because I think the dam would be beneficial to my constituency; second, because I think it would be good for my province; and third, because I think it would be good for the whole dominion of Canada.
I listened with a good deal of interest this afternoon to the arguments of the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Rosthern. I must admit that the hon. member for Rosthern had considerable courage in saying what he did this afternoon, because in Saskatchewan it does take courage to vote against a motion of this kind. Nevertheless, I simply could not follow his reasoning. If this dam is good for the people of Saskatchewan and of Canada-and I think the member would agree that it is-I do not see how he can speak in favour of it on the one hand, and then the next moment vote against it.
Perhaps an argument can be made that the party system requires such a vote. But, as the hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out, even if our Saskatchewan Liberal members did vote for this project, the government would still have a majority of more than 100. So I cannot see that there would be any danger of the government being upset simply because those members supported the amendment. In Saskatchewan today this issue is not a political one. Everyone, whether he is a Liberal, a Conservative, a C.C.F.'er or a Social Crediter, favours the South Saskatchewan dam. I know the Minister of Agriculture favours it. I know that for years he has tried to sell the project to the government. I wish he had been a little more successful.
In the western United States today there is a very serious drought. In Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma and other states the dust is blowing daily. Every year for the last three years the drought area has crept further north. It is quite true that on the prairies today it is fairly wet, but we know that dry years may return.
Many members of this house are inclined to feel that the Saskatchewan river dam is just another handout for our province. I should like to impress on them that in my opinion it is not. The Prime Minister is doubtful as to whether or not it is economically feasible. I am absolutely convinced that this dam is economically feasible. It is a self-liquidating project that would pay for itself over a number of years.


An hon. Member:: Time and time again.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: During the depression we paid out millions of dollars in relief funds. Much of this expenditure could be avoided, if another depression came, by having this dam in the middle of the dust area. It would provide a basis for new industries, canneries and the like. It would provide hydroelectric power. The dam would enable many more people to live in Saskatchewan. It would provide new crops and give stability to the livestock industry. I repeat that this irrigation project is not a handout to Saskatchewan. It is a scheme which is sensible, feasible and desirable.
I am sometimes surprised when I realize that countries like Israel, Egypt, India and some of the so-called backward nations in this world can do so much in the way of irrigation, yet a modern prosperous country like Canada lets huge quantities of water run right through the dust bowl into Hudson bay. Over a period of years I suppose this project might cost the people of Canada about $10 million annually, or even about $12 million a year. But the return would be fabulous as compared with the original investment.
To you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house I suggest that this dam could be the making of Saskatchewan. I hope that all members, regardless of their party, will give it the consideration it deserves.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have heard a number of speeches which I thought were quite interesting, to say the least. The Minister of Agriculture spent some time in lecturing hon. members about playing politics with the South Saskatchewan river dam. I wondered just who started this political football. After all, the manner in which this subject has been treated by the government would indicate that that is what they consider it to be. It was started by the Minister of Agriculture himself. He has stated on more than one occasion that he was the first even to mention the project. Certainly from a political standpoint the Minister of Agriculture has used the South Saskatchewan river dam in every election since 1945. He mentioned the year 1946, but I can recall references to the dam being made in the 1945 election campaign.


Mr. Knight:: And in 1944.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Saskatoon informs me that they were talking about the dam in 1944.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Provincially.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Suffice it to say that this matter has been brought to the attention of this country for a great number of years. With

respect to the original proposition, may I say that it was to be a federal undertaking. I was quite interested this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Rosthern make the rounds and complete the circle. He is now back to the position where he says the project should be a federal matter.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I said that under the present proposal we were going to spend over $70 million in the province of Saskatchewan. I said it seemed to me that we should not be expected to spend, as the provincial share, more than half that amount.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Taking the statement just made by the hon. member for Rosthern, Mr. Speaker, might I remind him that it was the federal government that first insisted on the province of Saskatchewan paying anything. Here is the amazing situation. The people of Saskatchewan had been led to believe that the federal government was going to undertake the construction of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river. No one in Saskatchewan had any idea whatsoever that the provincial government was going to be asked to play a part in the construction of the dam.
A few years later, after the federal officials had been pressed by various organizations in the province of Saskatchewan to do something about the dam, they turned around and said, "We are all set to go ahead on the dam, but we are waiting on the provincial government of Saskatchewan to tell us how much they are going to pay as their share of the cost".
If the hon. member for Rosthern is worried about the amount of money the people of Saskatchewan are going to have to pay in connection with the construction of this dam, I suggest that it was his own party and the Minister of Agriculture who first threw on the shoulders of the provincial government any financial responsibility whatever. The year 1949 was the first time the province of Saskatchewan were informed by the federal authorities that they were going to be called upon to pay a share of the cost of the dam.
The hon. member for Rosthern also made a number of other extremely interesting statements. At the outset he said he was not going to apologize for the way he was going to vote. He then proceeded to spend the rest of his time doing just that. However, we heard a speech which many of us have heard a good many times in the past. It was a speech on the grand old Liberal party and the great contribution it is making toward Canadian unity. Of course we in Saskatchewan have heard that type of address so many times that one can perhaps attribute some of the lack of success of Liberal candidates in
South Saskatchewan River Project that province to the playing of this record over and over again ad nauseam.
I noticed that the hon. member, until his closing remarks, made no statement in support of the dam. I should have thought he, as a member from Saskatchewan, would have availed himself of the time at his disposal in this debate to try to persuade hon. members of the importance of an immediate start on the construction of this dam.
Instead of doing that he indulged in something which I think is quite common among Liberals from our province. They rise in their places and rather intimidate members of the opposition. They make this suggestion: "You people should not say much about your own province because, after all, you have certain concessions"-as they would put it-"that you are in danger of losing unless you go along the line and accept our offer, whatever it might be". Mention was made of the P.F.A.A. and the suggestion was "You people from Saskatchewan should not say very much about this dam because you are getting some special privilege".
I want to remind the hon. member for Rosthern of the fact that we are Canadians, whether we come from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, British Columbia or any other province; and it is a little bit annoying at times to hear Saskatchewan Liberals get to their feet and suggest that we in Saskatchewan are a separate group and that we are existing by leave of the other provinces of Canada.
I suggest that we must consider the South Saskatchewan irrigation project as a national project. Because it happens to be located in the province of Saskatchewan is one reason we from Saskatchewan are more familiar with it than are others. In all sincerity I suggest to the members of this house that naturally members coming from a particular province are better acquainted than are others with particular projects in their own province. Hence it is only natural that when these matters are raised in the House of Commons it is going to be local people who draw them to the attention of other members of the house. Just because we do that is not to suggest that we consider the South Saskatchewan river dam project as something that is going to affect the province of Saskatchewan only.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we must think as Canadians. We must get over the provincialism displayed here this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosthern. He did not call it provincialism; oh, no. He portrayed himself as the great champion of national unity. But by implication and in the very remarks he made he revealed himself as a provincially-minded member because, in

South Saskatchewan River Project effect, what he said was this: "This project affects the people of Saskatchewan only; therefore if you do not mind your p's and q's we are not going to get it; the rest of Canada is not going to give it to us".
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia, we have supported worthwhile projects in all parts of Canada. We have given our full support to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. No member of this group has failed to give complete support to the building of the Canso causeway. All these projects are in the national interest, and as Canadians we support them. By the same token I suggest that the South Saskatchewan river dam project, although it is being built in the province of Saskatchewan, is of national importance. After all, the economic well-being of one province-and it does not matter which province it is-affects the economic life of the entire country.
The hon. member for Peace River mentioned some of the advantages that accrued to the southern part of Alberta as the result of irrigation projects. We in Saskatchewan are only too well aware of the fact that we are essentially a one-crop economy. That does not make for economic stability. Certainly the objective all of us should seek is to put the agricultural economy of the province on a sounder basis, and through diversification of agriculture make not only the economic lot of those farming in that area better but add to the economic well-being of people in all parts of Canada.
A number of other comments were made this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosthern, and I should like to make passing reference to one or two of them. He mentioned something about the Prime Minister, and said we in the house should not have the temerity to challenge his wisdom or logic. I suggest that no member is beyond criticism. Because a member happens to belong to the cabinet or be the prime minister I do not think he should therefore be absolved of all blame or free from all criticism.
I suggest that in recent years the Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he is a thoroughgoing conservative, with a small "c". I believe history will bear that out. Certainly in his attitude of late on a great number of questions he has revealed himself so conservative as to be termed reactionary. I am not going to go into that matter this afternoon, but I do suggest that the Prime Minister as leader of the government must accept the greater responsibility for government action or inaction, and in this case it is inaction.
The Liberals of Saskatchewan talk about their support for the dam, but they support

a party, they support a government, they support a prime minister, all of whom have said "No" to the dam. Now they say they have to hew to the line and vote against the amendment because it involves want of confidence. Another hon. member has already mentioned that with the top-heavy majority enjoyed by the government, defections on the part of hon. members opposite certainly are not going to jeopardize the government. What is more, I suggest the Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that he is anxious to be convinced that this project is in the national interest.
How is he going to come to that conclusion? I suggest hon. members should be in a position where they could reveal to him what they think. Consequently I suggest to hon. members on the government side that this is their opportunity to say to the Prime Minister of Canada that they believe the dam should be built, and no amount of alibiing in advance on the part of Saskatchewan Liberals is going to cover up the fact that in this instance they are placing their party ahead of the South Saskatchewan river dam project.
I mentioned a few moments ago the strange twist of events that has taken place recently. In the initial instance the dam was to be a federal undertaking. Then, in order to get off the hook, the Minister of Agriculture suddenly confronted the province of Saskatchewan with the ultimatum that if they wished to see the dam built they would have to pay part of the cost. Now we have the spectacle of a supporter of the government suggesting that the province has agreed to pay too much. You cannot satisfy these people. In the first instance they complained because the province was not going to pay anything toward the project, and now they turn around and argue that the province has agreed to pay too much. I suggest if the province is offering to pay too much it is up to the hon. member for Rosthern and his colleagues to have a heart to heart talk with the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister and convince them of that fact, if the building of the dam is in the realm of immediate possibility.
We have heard vague assurances that the dam is going to be built some time; that it is going to be built tomorrow. The old, trite saying that tomorrow never comes is applicable in this case. I suggest the government has had ample time to reveal whether or not it ever intends to proceed with the construction of the dam. Being removed from the provincial scene, one misses some of the politicking that is going on in the province. But I can recall that a few years ago the hon. member for Rosthern was leader of the

opposition in the legislature, and he made a great to-do about the Cass-Beggs report. He said they were all set to build the dam, and the Saskatchewan government had a report on power made by David Cass-Beggs which frightened the government into appointing a royal commission.
The royal commission was appointed in 1952, and it held hearings and made a report. Just to make absolutely certain that the commission's report would be what the government wanted, the government appointed as members of the commission Dr. T. H. Hogg of Toronto, a power man, Mr. G. A. Gaherty of Calgary, a power man, and the late Dr. John Widtsoe of Salt Lake City, the only irrigation expert on the royal commission, and the government got precisely what it asked for. It got a report confirming the fears expressed by the Prime Minister that perhaps the project was not in the national interest. Nevertheless the report, in the light of present-day conditions, is quite interesting. At page 29 there is a discussion of the immediate effects upon the economy, and I find there the following:
With relatively full employment, no new physical assets can be created without diverting labour and other resources from their current employment. Society must then do without the production that is lost by this transfer and this represents the real cost to it of the project. When labour and other resources have no employment opportunities they can be utilized for the production of goods and services which thereby are secured without any real cost to the community. This is one aspect of the argument that the best time for heavy investment of public money is during a period of business recession.
Of course I am quite well aware that the government does not consider we are having a business recession. In spite of the efforts of members on the opposition side to convince them that over 600,000 unemployed in Canada represent a serious condition, they have tended to minimize at every turn the economic situation facing the people of the country at the present time. But I do want to refer to a suggestion put forward by one of the government supporters a few moments ago. He said we should not be too impatient, that we should be prepared to wait for this beneficent Liberal government, which has the interests of all Canada at heart-I should put that in quotation marks-to build the dam, and that if we wait long enough some day it will do so.
The suggestion is made that we should not complain because, after all, if federal funds were to be used in building the dam this would be a special concession or favour bestowed on us by a beneficent federal government. I want to suggest at the outset that the greater part of the money to be
South Saskatchewan River Project spent in the building of the dam will not be spent in the province of Saskatchewan at all. In the building of a dam of this magnitude a great portion of the cost will be represented by the buying of heavy machinery, and that machinery is going to be purchased in eastern Canada. It is going to be purchased in places other than the province of Saskatchewan.
As a matter of fact, estimates of as high as 75 per cent have been made of the leakage in projects of this kind. Only a quarter or perhaps less than a quarter of the money actually to be spent on the dam will be spent in the province of Saskatchewan. The bulk of the money will be spent in other parts of Canada, particularly in eastern Canada.
This brings out my point that the project is in the national interest. It will be built, if it ever is built under existing conditions of sharing the cost, largely by the provincial government. The hon. member for Rosthern has suggested that the provincial government has committed itself to spending $70 million toward the completion of the project. It is actually $78 million. According to the latest information the federal government would be called upon to spend about $62 million. This $62 million would be spread over a great number of years to create economic stability in a province that has long known crop failures and drought.
In spite of the fact that there is a great deal of water on the plains today, let us remember that the building of a dam is also a measure of flood control. Let us remember that within the past 10 years there have been times when feed has been imported into the province from Manitoba. We are faced with the problem of building up a measure of economic stability in a part of Canada which, after all, has a great effect on the entire dominion.
Perhaps I should say a word about the role of the Minister of Agriculture in this whole affair. The minister has told us he is in favour of the dam. He has been telling us that for a great number of years, and he still persists in telling us it is going to be built. I have no doubt the dam will be built, but I have serious doubts whether the Minister of Agriculture or any of his colleagues will be on the government benches when that is done. Certainly if we have waited this long to get any evidence of willingness to proceed with this project, then I think we are going to look in vain for any leadership from the Liberal party in this connection.
I do want to suggest that one or two conditions obtain in so far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned. In the first instance.

South Saskatchewan River Project it the minister did decide to really build the dam, or to look upon the promise to build the dam as more than just an election promise, then he has been guilty of deceiving the people of Saskatchewan over the past 10 or 11 years. If he really believed this dam would be proceeded with by this government, or had any reason to believe the government would listen to his suggestions, then I suggest his influence with the government is almost negligible. I suggest that, as a matter of protest if nothing else, he should have taken issue with his colleagues, realizing his status as a member of the cabinet.
We find a different situation obtains with respect to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison). They are not ministers of this government, and certainly when this vote is taken there is nothing whatever to stop them from voting for this amendment. They say they would be voting non-confidence in the government. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that on a previous occasion in this house the hon. member for Rosthern voted for an amendment of this kind. The adoption of that amendment did not involve the defeat of the government. If these members feel that way, then I suggest the Prime Minister should say to the supporters of the government that on this issue there shall be a free vote; that he wants an expression of opinion on whether or not this project should be proceeded with. I believe that should be done; then the Liberals from Saskatchewan would have no valid ground for saying they must go along with the government on this particular issue.


Irvin William Studer: Balderdash.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Swift
Current-Maple Creek is muttering in his beard again. I would prefer that he be intelligent, but he insists upon being asinine.


Irvin William Studer: I do not want to follow your example.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is true that I and others have injected an element of politics into the discussion this afternoon. I suggest, however, this project has been made a political football by none other than the members who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker. From the outset the South Saskatchewan dam was promised to the people of Saskatchewan by the Liberal party. Now they find themselves in a position where many people are asking for some results. Just saying over and over again that you are in favour of doing something is a poor substitute for action.
[Mr. Ellis.1

I do want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the role of the Minister of Agriculture could be briefly summed up in this way. In the negotiations that have been carried on among the federal officials, the P.F.R.A. and the officials of the provincial government to bring about some measure of agreement which would facilitate the commencement of this project, the provincial negotiations have always been at a distinct disadvantage. While they, were negotiating in good faith they never knew whether, as a result of all their negotiation, the federal government would pay any attention to them. It seems to me that if you are going to have negotiations you must have equity; you must have fairness, and you must have two parties willing to sit down and say if we can arrive at some mutually acceptable agreement we are honour bound to proceed under that agreement.
The situation has been that while Mr. Douglas and the members of his cabinet have been carrying on negotiations with the federal government, they were always aware of the fact that even if they were able to come to an agreement on every particular with the federal officials it still did not mean that the dam was going to be built. The provincial government stated in advance that they wanted this dam built. They wanted to meet with federal officials to bring about a solution satisfactory to both sides, and then they wanted an immediate start on the dam. The federal officials would come along and say, "Well, we will talk it over, but that does not mean we are going to build it if we do come to an agreement." Every time an agreement was reached the Minister of Agriculture would pop up with some new condition.
I am not going over the whole story, but at the outset there was some reference to the subsidization of power. Earlier there was a reference to the Cass-Beggs report, and there was a report which had to do with the power aspect of the project. No one can argue any longer that the question of power is an obstacle, under any circumstances, to an agreement between the federal and provincial government. I believe that matter has been taken care of. The statement was made, "We are not going to permit the subsidization of power in any province by the use of federal funds." In order to avoid that the provincial government agreed to pay the full cost of building a power station at the dam.
After that agreement had been reached we had every reason to believe that we were making some progress, but up popped the Minister of Agriculture with another condition. He said the province would have to

pay the cost of moving that water from the reservoir to the users of the water. The province agreed to that. They were going to bend over backward to do everything they possibly could to bring about an agreement which would be acceptable to the federal officials.
Then we were told we had to pay part of the cost of building the reservoir itself. When the hon. member for Rosthern complains that the province is paying too much, I ask him this. Who forced the province into the position of paying too much? I say it was his colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government who forced the province into that position.
There is no use turning around and trying to blame the province, or suggesting they are being unwise and too extravagant in spending that much money, when the fact is that by progressive steps the Liberal government have forced the provincial government in Saskatchewan to commit itself to greater expenditures.
Well, we agreed to pay for part of the reservoir. We thought then we were going to make headway. Along came the Minister of Agriculture, reaching into his pocket and pulling out another document. "Now", he says, "what about the treasury bills?" There had been an agreement that the province might be permitted to pay part of its cost of construction in treasury bills, payable over a term of 20 years. The Minister of Agriculture came along and said, "We think we can sell this idea to the cabinet only if the province agrees to pay it all in cash every year". I am certain they felt virtually certain that the province would be unable to meet that exacting requirement.
Then-the latest-the Minister of Agriculture comes along and says, "What about penstocks?" Well, you cannot but wonder about it; every time you reach the point where the province may get something from the agreement, you find a new and exacting condition put forward. I suggest in all sincerity that these conditions have been put forward as part of deliberate policy on the part of this government, trying to force the government of Saskatchewan into a position where it would refuse to go further. And, if that had happened, the Liberal party would then go up and down the province saying, "Oh, we wanted to build this dam, but the provincial government stood in our way". In my judgment that is precisely the policy pursued by the Minister of Agriculture in the country and in the House of Commons.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: And where does he stand in Saskatchewan today?
16, 1955	3811
South Saskatchewan River Project


Alfred Claude Ellis: The question has been asked as to where he stands in Saskatchewan today. Well, I do not wish to deal with that at length, but there are brandished knives in Saskatchewan among the Liberals who are fighting over a corpse.
I repeat that this whole matter of negotiation between the federal and provincial governments has been on the basis of leading the provincial government along to the point where, it was hoped, that government would go no farther. But, despite all these obstacles and roadblocks thrown in the way of the provincial government, it had been determined to go ahead with the dam. The premier of Saskatchewan repeatedly wrote to Ottawa requesting interviews with the Prime Minister, and saying that something should be done.
Last fall the premier of the province was very anxious to come to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet. The Prime Minister showed the letter to the Minister of Agriculture, which was the most unfortunate thing that could have happened, because the Minister of Agriculture said, in effect, "Well, I will take care of that. That is all right. I am going out to Saskatchewan next week, and I will take care of it".
So he went out to Saskatchewan, and once again another of these obstacles was thrown before the provincial government which, by this time, was getting a little frustrated and annoyed. They insisted upon coming to terms, and finding out what was the score. Finally the premier of the province had the temerity to inform the Minister of Agriculture that the province of Saskatchewan wanted the Liberal government in Ottawa to say yes or no. Then the Minister of Agriculture turned around and said, "If that is the way you are going to do business, all right. Only last July you insisted upon our committing ourselves when we were not prepared to negotiate. You must know that the only way we can negotiate with you is to have you lay all your cards on the table, and then we will decide whether or not we are playing for keeps."
Well, we know that finally a meeting was held following the preliminary dominion-provincial conference. While I do not know for sure, I believe the Minister of Agriculture was present at that meeting. In any event the sum total of the meeting was a flat no, on the part of the Prime Minister. So, after all these years of promises, and after all this time, here is the situation. Liberal members have been going up and down the province of Saskatchewan making all sorts of promises. Finally, when the chips are down and the premier of Saskatchewan is face to face with

South Saskatchewan River Project the Prime Minister of Canada, the' Prime Minister said what I am certain Liberals must have know many years ago, that this government had no intention whatsoever of building that dam.
I just wish to conclude by reminding hon. members once again that this is not a provincial issue. The building of the South Saskatchewan dam is a national issue, just as is the building of the Canso causeway or the building of the St. Lawrence seaway project. It is something which will have great benefits for the people of Canada as a whole. It is time to build this country up; and when I think that in the province of Saskatchewan, where we have less than a million population, our province has enough faith in the future, enough faith in the building of the dam, that we are willing to put up $78 million, then I certainly think the government of Canada which, at this juncture, would have to put up $62 million, should come through and fulfil its promises, and commence construction of that dam.
I suggest that in voting on this amendment Liberals from Saskatchewan will be able to show their true colours. They will have their opportunity when the vote is taken to let the country know and to let their constituents know whether they are in favour of the dam to the point where they are prepared to put themselves on record to that effect. I challenge Liberal members from Saskatchewan to vote for this amendment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, shortly before six o'clock the hon. member for Rosthern spent a good deal of time explaining that a vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert would mean a vote against the government, and if the motion should carry the government would be defeated. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interjected and asked the hon. member for Rosthern about his vote on August 27, 1946, when the milk subsidy was before parliament.
I would remind the house that on that occasion the hon. member for Rosthern voted for a similar amendment. The motion was carried but the government was not defeated, and the business of the house went on. I might mention that on that date I had the


pleasure of presenting an amendment on the motion to go into supply, as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house desires to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the continuance of the milk subsidy so as to ensure adequate return to milk producers and make possible the consumption of milk for the nutrition of the Canadian people without any further increase in the price thereof to the consumers."
The present Prime Minister was the acting prime minister on that occasion and he suggested after our case had been presented that I should withdraw the motion. However, my colleagues and I did not agree, and later the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) asked that hon. members of the house have a free vote. He went on to say, as reported on page 5431 of Hansard:
Therefore I should like to serve notice that if this vote carries the government will immediately move that the house go into committee of supply this day. I believe that that procedure is consistent with the rules, and if there can be general agreement on that point the work of the house can be facilitated and the objective of hon. members attained.
I appreciate the fact that on a number of occasions the Prime Minister has expressed the opinion that public funds for the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam should not be voted by parliament at this particular time. However, I am sure the Prime Minister could not have any objection to testing the opinion of parliament. I am of the opinion at the moment that a majority of the members of the house might agree with the Prime Minister. I think it was a pity this afternoon that the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Rosthern did not take more time to point out the advantages to all Canada of having a project such as this proceeded with.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall do that on my estimates.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There is going to be a vote shortly, and I think it would have been desirable that hon. members of all parties have a chance to indicate whether they think the proposal of the hon. member for Prince Albert should be supported. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would be in a much stronger position if he had a favourable vote, as we had when the milk subsidy was before this parliament.
I do not wish to become involved this evening in a political discussion with members across the way, but I do want to present some arguments in an effort to convince the house that this proposal is a desirable step in connection with the development of all Canada. We should not lose sight of the fact

that during the past 25 years we have had two problems which have become national in character, the problem of drought and the present problem of flooding.
I have here the telegraphic crop report for May 11, which is published by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This points out that the average rainfall in Manitoba for the period from April 1 was 2-07 inches as compared with the long-term average of 1 [DOT] 48. That indicates that this is not a serious problem in Manitoba as a whole, although there are a few sections where there has been a sharp increase.
In the case of Alberta the long-term average is 1-4 inches, whereas this year it has been 2-41. Again there is no serious problem, although a few isolated places in Alberta have rainfalls for this year two or three times the average for the rest of the province.
In the case of Saskatchewan the long-term average is 1-21 inches, compared with this year's amount of 3-86 inches. I have picked out a few communities in the northeastern section of the province which I have the honour to represent, and these figures will indicate the problem we have on our doorstep. These are the figures:
	Long-term average	This year
Leross 	
1-30	606"Yorkton 	
107	4-15Dafoe	
.89	6*08Buchanan 	
1-10	403Hudson Bay	
116	3-86Porcupine Plain .	
1-12	5-26Melfort 	
M0	5-79
I am sure that hon. members, regardless of where they sit, will not blame any government for the drought experience in the thirties or for the flooding we have had in northeastern Saskatchewan during the past several years. The secretary of a municipality in my constituency writes that the last good crop they had was in 1949, and since that time they have had a succession of floods or frosts or both. He states that as a result, the arrears of taxes which stood at $38,000 in 1949 increased to $51,000 in 1950, to $62,000 in 1951, to $68,000 in 1952, to $80,000 in 1953 and to $116,000 in 1954. This is a municipality with quite a small assessment. It is in an area where they have had a succession of very wet years. This has posed a most difficult problem for the people in that municipality.
I realize that the building of the South Saskatchewan dam is not going to solve the problem for all people in Saskatchewan, but I think the government must decide that a project similar to the Tennessee valley authority should be established in Saskatchewan so
South Saskatchewan River Project we can conserve the excessive moisture we have some years to make it available in the years of drought.
Experts in the various departments of government here do not wish to take responsibility for the sort of weather we have been having. I had a letter from one of my constituents who has been keeping careful weather records for over 50 years, and it is his considered opinion that the atomic and hydrogen bomb tests have been a factor in the most unusual weather we have been having. I might mention that such a well known authority as Dr. Ritchie Calder wrote in the New Statesman, and Nation a few months ago that up until a year ago the best experts laughed at the idea of these experiments having any effect on the weather. But now the best authorities are not so dogmatic. They concede that there might be some connection. My friend writes:
Last year, marked atomic conditions were ameliorated after September 20. The conditions passed to drought (as they had in 1952) as the weeks went by. Winter did not close down at Sub Rosa, 2,000 feet above the sea level, until November 26, a month later than normal, and drought continued all winter and onwards.
. . . the drought continued on into spring (which came at the abnormally early date, for the hills, of April 3.


Mr. Philpoit:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; this seems a long way from the South Saskatchewan dam.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is not so very far, Mr. Speaker. My constituent has expressed the opinion-and it is not an isolated opinion- that the atomic and hydrogen bomb tests have had an effect on the weather. If the hon. member for Vancouver South, who is an authority on a great many subjects, will say definitely that they have not, I am sure some of the other well known scientists in the world will be glad to have his considered opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put that in your column and smoke it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A very serious problem is developing as a result of the excessive rainfall which I have mentioned, as recorded by the Department of Trade and Commerce in this bulletin on weather conditions in the prairie provinces. This publication suggests that there are areas which are having very heavy rainfalls each year. This poses a problem which is too great for the municipalities to deal with, and it is becoming a problem that is too great for the province.
I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are negotiating with cabinet ministers from Saskatchewan to

South Saskatchewan River Project review this whole problem, but I believe we could not start too soon appropriating funds for a project such as the South Saskatchewan dam. The cost that has been mentioned probably sounds a good deal as compared with the projects we had a few years ago. But as compared with some of the projects we undertook during the war it seems a very modest amount. The Minister of Trade and Commerce embarked on the construction of the Polymer project at Sarnia when we lost our supplies of natural rubber. This project required an investment of over $50 million, with no guarantee that the completed project would meet our requirement. The Shipshaw project was also undertaken. These did not place any great strain on the Canadian economy.
I submit that the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam, as a beginning to conserve moisture and make water available in areas where they have had recurring droughts, is a step that must be taken. Consider the large expenditures we are able to make in the field of defence. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) was good enough to take about 40 of his colleagues to the north of his constituency a short time ago, and they were greatly impressed by the achievements in that north country.
These expenditures are made in the public interest. We were all greatly impressed by those large planes that were being used to transport heavy equipment to the north. We were told that the heavy Caterpillars could travel under their own power into the bowels of one of these big machines. They told us that the machines weighed 50 tons empty, and could take off with a load of 50 tons without any trouble. The machine empty represented an investment of a little less than $3 million. I realize that the Canadian government has not made the investment, but we are participating in the use of these very large machines.
When one considers the importance of the dam to our whole economy, and particularly to people in the area that would be served by it, I think it is only reasonable that we should test public opinion in this parliament tonight. I think the Prime Minister will agree tonight, as he did in 1946, that members regardless of where they sit, should stand up and indicate whether or not they think the building of this dam would be serving the best interests of Canada. We should not lose sight of the fact that if we are not prepared to conserve our land and water resources and use them in the best interests of all the people of Canada and all the people of the world, we cannot forever look forward to holding this vast territory.

I would remind the house that the Euphrates valley at one time supported a population of over 20 million people. Now only 2j million people live there, illiterate, ill-clothed, ill-fed, diseased peasants, who eke out a wretched existence. They did not have the advantage of all the information that we have available. As the hon. member for Prince Albert has suggested, I believe we should immediately start on the construction of this one project in an area in Canada which has produced great quantities of food for the country, an area that is vital to the continued prosperity of Canada as a whole.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I think the discussion of this particular subject is very timely when we consider the state of affairs in western Canada. People are certainly frustrated by the apathy of this government in not going ahead with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam. I do not believe I could think of one other proposal that has been used to greater advantage as a political football by the Liberals, with the possible exception of the Hudson Bay railway, than this proposal of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
At present the situation in western Canada is the result of a combination of factors. I do not believe we are going to find a solution to this problem unless we are prepared to undertake some kind of flood control. I do not believe the topography of the land in Saskatchewan is able to handle such severe conditions of flooding as we have had during the past few years. I do not believe the river channels and watercourses are able to cope with that flooding. I believe we have to undertake as a dominion project some sort of over-all water conservation policy in this region.
I should like to go even further. I suggest that possibly we should give some consideration to a scheme of diverting acreage. If a farmer had a few acres of land on his farm that was eroding very badly the government should make some concession for that land if he took it out of production and planted it to grass, for instance, or if he did a little drainage work, and took those acres out of production. I think it would go a long way toward the over-all water conservation program we must have in this country if we are going to solve the problem with which we will be confronted in the future.
So I say the problem with which we are faced is a climax to a condition which has come about over the past few years. Certainly the leader of the Social Credit party this afternoon expressed what a great many of us feel, I suppose, that we have so much water we do not know what to do with it,

and we do not like to hear the word mentioned. That is true. But when we examine this proposition of water control, I think that in itself will help to remedy this flooding condition with which we are confronted. I believe the dam would be one of the keys to this over-all water conservation program of which I spoke.
I will not say I was annoyed, but I was a little bit concerned this afternoon when the Minister of Agriculture stated that the dam had not been known as such prior to 1946, or words to that effect. Since I have been in this house I have been amazed, on every occasion this subject has been discussed, to hear members of the government and other hon. members opposite go out of their way to try to convince not only other members of the Liberal party but Canadians in general that we in Saskatchewan, because we are clamouring for this dam, have some selfish motive, or some motive that is not in the interests of the rest of Canada.
I am sure we must all agree that if we could build the dam it would not only be of the greatest assistance in controlling water in Saskatchewan, but would help immeasurably in controlling the flow of water in the province of Manitoba. When we take these factors into consideration, to say nothing of the proposal that was put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Regina City and by other members on this side of the house at various times, as to the public investment program that such a proposition would initiate, I think it is something that should be given the greatest consideration when we are speaking about building the dam as being in the national interest.
I should like to place on record one or two statements that have been made. As I said a moment ago, it is not only the Minister of Agriculture who has used this issue. He said this afternoon that he wanted to see the dam built. May I say that I am in complete agreement with that statement. It seems to me that not only the minister but every other Liberal from the province of Saskatchewan has used this issue whenever he felt it was politically advantageous to do so. I should like to place on record one or two quotations which I believe justify that assertion.
First of all, even back in 1945 the Minister of Agriculture, while speaking to a meeting at Southey, had this to say:
Southey, Sask. Agriculture minister Gardiner told an election meeting last night that plans are ready for starting prairie farm rehabilitation projects costing $30 million.
This work for irrigation could be started as soon as the need for employment arose after the war. In addition the minister told of a large program
South Saskatchewan River Project for which the plans were only partly drawn, costing $110 million in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It would involve a dam on the Saskatchewan river near Outlook, Saskatchewan.
That was one of the statements made. I am sure all the provocative statements have been made by Liberals themselves. Those of us in Saskatchewan cannot be accused of going out and making the only provocative statements that have been made in this connection.
Again I should like to quote Mr. Charles Henderson, then Liberal member of parliament, speaking at Kindersley on May 18, 1945. Among other things he stated as follows:
. .	. that he had secured assurances that $111
million would be available for the proposed scheme.
He was speaking of the South Saskatchewan river dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Neither one of those statements was with regard to the South Saskatchewan river dam alone. They were with regard to all the large projects. More than half of the projects are already completed.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: This quotation of which I am speaking definitely had reference to the South Saskatchewan river dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was speaking about the $110 million proposal which, as was pointed out in the previous quotation, was for all the projects.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: That is true, but the dam was to be included in that expenditure. Then Mr. J. Gordon Ross, then member for Moose Jaw, speaking at Chaplin on May 23, 1946, in preparation for the Morse by-election, had this to say, speaking of this expenditure:
. . . and a start will be made as soon as men and. equipment are available.
He was referring to the South Saskatchewan irrigation scheme. Then on October 20, 1948, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking about the dam at Allan, Saskatchewan, and this to say:
Most of the money would be provided by the federal government because it could not be expected that Saskatchewan, subject to drought, could carry the load of such a capital expenditure.
Then we have the statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern in support of Mr. Boucher. He advocated the election of Mr. Boucher if the people of Saskatchewan wanted to get the dam built.
He added, "You certainly won't get anywhere by sending C.C.F'ers to Ottawa-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

South Saskatchewan River Project


Hugh Alexander Bryson: That is all right. But where are these great champions of the dam today?


An hon. Member:: Right here.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Then there are other statements by the Minister of Agriculture. They go on .and on. I am not going to read from them .any further, but I wanted to put on the record some of the very provocative state-aments that have been made from time to .time, as I say, whenever the Liberals thought .it was politically advantageous to do so.
Besides the value of the dam as a water .conservation measure, and besides its importance as a power and irrigation project, I think one of the things we must bear in mind is that in the Carrot river triangle there js in the neighbourhood of-and I shall be conservative

750,000 acres of land which .could be utilized provided it was drained; and it will never be settled until complete drainage is carried out. That situation can come about only when we have on the South Saskatchewan river the control that would be provided if we had the dam there. I therefore say that power and irrigation are only part of the great advantages that would be gained from that proposition.
I think there are a great many aspects of [DOT]this matter of flooding in Saskatchewan that should be brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture as well as to other members of the house. Over the last few days I have had a great many letters from farmers who have grain stored in bins out in the field. Because of the flooding, great loss is going to take place in connection with that grain. These farmers are not able to haul their grain. They cannot get it out. To start with, there is no room in the elevators. The roads are impassable. That grain is going to be a complete loss in many cases. I think that is a deplorable situation.
As was pointed out this afternoon in connection with the unemployment question, the money spent in building this dam would be of the greatest importance to the over-all economy of this country. The fact that 75 per cent of the money spent on the turbines and all other materials that would be used in the construction would accrue to other parts of Canada should be given some weight when this question is being considered in the light of how it is going to affect the over-all economy of the country.
This afternoon somebody asked, what has this to do with the over-all economy? How would this be beneficial in the national interest? I should like to point out, as I have on previous occasions, that we in western Canada have supported the seaway, though 1 do


not think too many of our farmers are completely taken in by the promises of what is going to accrue to them when the seaway is completed. I think it has been overexaggerated. In my opinion a great many people believe that in all probability freight rates in western Canada will increase when the seaway is completed. They are going to increase for the very simple reason that in all likelihood freight revenues in eastern Canada are going to decline. The railways will have to be subsidized, and the only place that is going to be done is at the expense of the western farmers. Nevertheless I believe there are very few farmers who are not in complete agreement with the seaway project.
Therefore I think we should look at these things in the light of the national interest. This afternoon reference was made to the proposition made years ago. I am not going to elaborate further, because the matter was well covered this afternoon by one or two other speakers. I should merely like to say that first of all the dam was to be built as a wholly federal project. Then Saskatchewan agreed to pay $33 million toward the project. Then we were asked and agreed to pay as high as $45 million. The next figure was $65 million and now it is $78 million, but we are no closer to getting the dam now than we were before. As a matter of fact the people of Saskatchewan feel they have been betrayed and led down the "Gardiner" path.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since my hon. friend has brought my name into it, as a matter of privilege I wish to say that we have never asked the Saskatchewan government to pay $78 million toward the South Saskatchewan river dam at any time.


An hon. Member:: That is because you will not agree to build it.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The minister said this afternoon the Liberals would build the dam, so we are back now exactly where we were when the proposition was first talked about. I should like to emphasize that I believe now is the time we should give the greatest consideration to an over-all national policy of water conservation. I think the South Saskatchewan dam is the key to that over-all policy. There are other projects which I am sure would be just as important, but I think it is important that we get away from this narrowness, this provincialism, when we are speaking about the South Saskatchewan river dam. In my opinion it should be part and parcel of an over-all program if we are to have any degree of flood control in western Canada.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time particularly to point out that the position this party has taken on the numerous occasions we have raised this question has emphasized the fact that this is not something exclusively of concern to the province of Saskatchewan. This is not merely a matter of debate between the Minister of Agriculture on the one hand and those from Saskatchewan in different parties on the other. The remark by the previous speaker with regard to provincialism would certainly not apply, and I am not suggesting he intended it to apply, to the position we have taken with respect to the matter since it has been first discussed. There is just a little tendency to carry on the debate as though this were something Saskatchewan was seeking to obtain from the government through the kind offices of the Minister of Agriculture, who happens to come from that province.
I am not going to repeat in detail the speeches I have made previously on this very subject. It happens to be a subject with which I have had certain personal acquaintance over many years. I can recall that for a great many years it has been one of the projects that has arrested the attention of those who believe that by the combined action of the governments of this country we should develop these great undeveloped resources, particularly where there is a strong humanitarian demand. I doubt if, from the humanitarian point of view, there is a single project now awaiting development in Canada that compares in importance with the development of the South Saskatchewan dam.
I am convinced this is a practical project. Certainly the evidence is there from engineers whose skill, competence and judgment would not be questioned by the Minister of Agriculture, because they are holding their offices as the result of his approval. Engineers of his own department have examined the project, have reported that it is practical, and have stated that it should proceed.
To those who are not acquainted with this matter the question might naturally arise as to why, with that recommendation before them, the government do not see fit to act. It may be well for those who may not have followed the matter to recall the rather strange arguments put forward by the government from time to time with regard to royal commissions. When we have asked that the government do what any big business would do and appoint a royal commission to examine the over-all organization of government and the efficiency of government
3817
South Saskatchewan River Project administration from the ordinary departmental administrative point of view, we have been told that this would be a denial of the responsibility of government. But we have seen just recently that the government proposes to set up a commission on the general economy of Canada. They have already named the chairman of the commission.
In the present case, because it is convenient to them, it is not a denial of responsibility. In the particular case under discussion they had the recommendation of qualified engineers who worked on the spot, carried out their tests right near the Coteau creek site, and after careful examination and research found that the project could be developed economically and in a practical way. But then the government, which is so very anxious about royal commissions which might impinge upon their responsibility, decided that it had a way out, and so it would not have to act on the advice of the engineers under the Minister of Agriculture, who obviously have his approval because they are still employed, the government appointed a royal commission to act as a burial squad. That is what it has been, nothing else.
They did not appoint a royal commission at the time they proceeded with the St. Lawrence seaway development and joined in that great co-ordinated enterprise which involves many times the expenditure that would be involved in the South Saskatchewan dam. They relied on their own engineers, men who were similarly responsible to a department of government, men who also carried out their duties, just as the engineers answerable to the Minister of Agriculture did. Why did they need a royal commission for a much smaller enterprise, though it is an enterprise of immense importance to the people of Saskatchewan? They did so for no other reason than to find an excuse for delay; that was the only reason. They had the engineers' report, just as they had the reports on the St. Lawrence development.
In this case we should not become too much involved in the details as between the power and irrigation. We know there is an estimate of the development of a minimum of 150,000 horsepower. We know part of that power will be required for the pumping machines which will be necessary to carry out the great irrigation project which will make one of the most arable areas in Saskatchewan in the neighbourhood of Outlook. There is no uncertainty as to what the soil is going to be like once the irrigation goes through. Those who have visited the experimental development near Outlook have seen some of the richest soil anywhere in the prairie provinces, through the simple device
3818	HOUSE OF
South Saskatchewan River Project of irrigation carried out for the one purpose of determining what the result would be of going ahead with this development. There is, therefore, no uncertainty.
As a matter of fact there was no uncertainty in the mind of the minister last year, because on June 10 the Minister of Agriculture was reported in the Regina Leader-Post as saying this. I ask hon. members on the other side as well as on this-perhaps on the other side more than on this, because we know we must convince them if there is any chance of a favourable vote on this important motion-to listen to what the minister said last year:
We have been doing all right at clearing obstruction out of the way. There were four when we started discussions and there is now only the one left-the question of power development costs-
Well, that simplifies it. All they need to know is the question of power development costs. They have the engineers. They have the reports. They know what can be done. I am convinced that the people in the rest of Canada want this project carried out and are prepared to provide from the common funds of the Dominion of Canada whatever is appropriately required under agreement with Saskatchewan to carry out this vitally important project.
This is not a provincial matter. This is one of those developments that will have its impact upon the whole of Canada. It is not only the people of Saskatchewan who have reason for great concern that today, in this country which has seen such remarkable developments within the last few years, there is within that part of the Palliser triangle near the area that would be served by the water and the power produced in this way as desolate a scene as we are likely to see anywhere in Canada.
Not long ago in New York I saw a collection of photographs that I would commend to anyone who happens to find his way there. It is a collection from all over the world, and can be seen in the new art gallery in New York. One of the pictures that struck me very forcibly was a picture of three dejected looking children leaning on a fence. There was a scene of dust, dryness and desolation behind them, and up on a hill in the central background was a none too attractive house. As I looked at the picture I was under the impression that it was probably a picture from the dust bowl in the United States. I then saw it was from Canada, from this very area that would be served by this development. Churches have been abandoned; schools have been abandoned; homes have been abandoned in an area with


soil that would produce crops as good as could be found anywhere on the prairies if this project were undertaken.
I am not suggesting that the government make capital expenditures recklessly. Nevertheless the human equation is an important factor in this matter. The simple decision to proceed with this, not just repeated assurances that we are getting further along the road toward removing the obstructions, would have a tremendous effect on people who see little opportunity of return for their early work, if they are still on the farm, and who see little prospect for their children on that land.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the evidence is there that this can be done. The evidence is there that the project would have a profound effect upon that whole area. The 150,000 horsepower is not by any manner of means the figure that should be in the minds of the members of this house in asking for a decision on this subject, a subject which has been bandied back and forth for years, which has been one of continuing promise by the minister and of continuing evasion by the government.
If we believe in the system of government responsibility, then it is time the minister did not suggest he could go out and make one statement independently of the government without being in the position that he should resign if the government fails to back him up on any undertaking on which his promise had been based. It is one or the other. Either he has been making statements recklessly, without due regard to his responsibility to the government, or he had some reason to believe the government would back him up. It is one or the other. It is time he took appropriate action to indicate whether he talked without responsibility or whether the government failed in their responsibility to him. This would clear the air and let us know exactly where the responsibility does lie.
Let us realize when we are talking about this subject that we would have here not merely the 150,000 horsepower-part of which would be needed for the irrigation but a substantial part of which would be available for homes in the area and for agricultural machinery-but we would also have the core of a great grid system which could be multiplied several times. Each of us knows that if you have a sure source of constant power you can multiply that immensely by supplementary steam power or diesel power and still keep an economic level of power costs.

The time has come when the minister should clear the air. May I repeat that on June 10 last the minister had this to say:
We have been doing all right at clearing obstruction out of the way. There were four when we started discussions and there is now only the one left-the question of power development costs-
Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house from another part of Canada, and as one who believes this is not merely something of concern to Saskatchewan but something by which every Canadian wants to see Saskatchewan given the opportunity it should have to restore this great heartland to the province, I urge the government to act.
May I point out to hon. members opposite that a motion has been brought forward which gives them an opportunity to say to the government what they want done. If any member believes this project should proceed, then he has no right to vote against this amendment. If they believe it should be done, then let them vote for this amendment. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture, with the consent of the Prime Minister who sits beside him, might indicate something that can be done. That is that there be a free vote; that this be not regarded as a test of confidence, if that in any way could embarrass the government, but that he seek the support which he surely should ask in view of the unqualified promises he has made in the past. This would give everybody on his own side who wishes to see this project proceed a chance to vote without injury to his future relationship to the government.
We have been told by the Prime Minister on other occasions that ministers, and presumably members, can act according to their conscience. Let them act according to their conscience on this occasion. Let everybody here provide an encouraging and striking demonstration that there is no provincialism m this, but that members throughout this house from the Atlantic to the Pacific want something done in Saskatchewan which will be of immense value to that province and to the whole of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to join with my colleagues in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert, but also to support the appeal just made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that the government permit a free vote on this question.
I have been rereading Hansard this afternoon to confirm my memory on the point that two years ago we had an amendment
50433-241i
16, 1955	3819
South Saskatchewan River Project similar to this, moved by the same hon. gentleman who now represents the constituency of Prince Albert. That amendment was moved in February and was debated for several days, finally being voted upon on February 10, 1953, as recorded at pages 1813 and 1814 of Hansard.
During the discussion of that amendment which, though in slightly different language, was the same as the one now before us in that it called for the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project, one of the chief arguments put forward by the Minister of Agriculture and by others on the Liberal side of the house against voting for the amendment was that it was a motion of non-confidence. The Minister of Agriculture used almost the same language as he used this afternoon, when he looked in my direction and said I should know that an amendment of this kind is a motion of non-confidence, and that therefore those who support the government, have to vote against it.
Now, I am sure those who were here at that time will not ask me to read the record to substantiate what I am now saying took place in February of 1953, because the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister1, and others who were here at that time will remember what happened then as well as I do. As I say, the result was that the amendment of the then member for Lake Centre, the present member for Prince Albert, was defeated. That, as I say, was on February 10, 1953, and is recorded in volume II of Hansard for that session.
I now turn to volume V of Hansard for that same session, and I would remind hon. members who were here that there was another motion to go into supply moved on May 6 of that year. On that occasion another member of the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), moved an amendment, one of those supposed amendments of non-confidence. Again it was moved as an amendment to the motion to go into supply. While on a different subject, procedurally it was exactly the same kind of amendment as the one moved in February concerning the dam.
Perhaps I should put the text of the second amendment on record so we will know what we are talking about. It is found at page 4850 of Hansard for May 6, and is as follows: That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
in view of the impending departure of the Prime Minister for Washington this house desires to record its opinion that further and more vigorous efforts should be made by the government to bring about the removal of the restrictions imposed by
3820	HOUSE OF COMMONS
South Saskatchewan River Project the United States on the importation of Canadian agricultural products, in violation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Following the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton there were speeches by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and then a speech by the Prime Minister. In the course of his speech the Prime Minister indicated that if it was understood that this amendment was not to be regarded as a motion of non-confidence in the government, he was willing that the house might pass the amendment, whereupon another motion could be moved to go into committee of supply and we could carry on with the day's business.
I am sure many of those present will recall that. But I ask the government and hon. members in the house generally to note that that happened in May, 1953, just a couple of months after we had been told by the Minister of Agriculture, "No, you cannot do that sort of thing". It looks as if it all depends upon the government's attitude toward the subject matter of the amendment. In the case of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton, apparently the government was not unwilling that the house should record itself in favour of the subject matter thereof; but in the case of the amendment moved in February, 1953, by the hon. member who is now the hon. member for Prince Albert, apparently the government felt differently.
So, Mr. Speaker, is it not pretty clear that what we are confronted with on these amendments to go into supply is not an ironclad and absolute rule that can be found somewhere in a book on procedure; rather that we are confronted with what the government tens us is the case each and every time. Sometimes the government says "This is a motion of non-confidence, and all Liberals must vote against it". And most Liberals, if not all, do vote against it. On the other hand, if the government decides it is a perfectly acceptable proposition and wants it to pass, then all Liberals vote for it, and it passes unanimously.
The occasion to which I refer, of May 6, 1953, is not the only one of recent date. I have here as well Hansard for 1951, and I would remind hon. members that on June 12 of that year there was an amendment to the motion to go into supply which, on that occasion, was moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Again the motion made by the government was a motion to go into supply. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition was, in the words of the Minister

of Agriculture today, and those of the hon. member for Rosthern, what is sometimes called a motion of non-confidence. According to them such a motion could not be carried without meaning the defeat of the government.
It so happens that on that occasion, as Your Honour will recall because of your interest in previous parliaments as well as in this one with respect to this matter, it dealt with a proposal to set up a special committee on procedure. That could lead into a discussion in which I shall not indulge at this time.
What was the attitude of the government on that occasion? Did the government say, "We will not let the Liberal party vote for this, because it would mean the defeat of the government"? No; the Prime Minister said that on the understanding that this was not to be regarded as a vote of nonconfidence, he had no objection to the acceptance of the amendment. Therefore on that occasion of June 12, 1951, the amendment to the motion to go into supply was adopted.
The government was not defeated, any more than it was on May 6, 1953. On each of those occasions, immediately after an opposition amendment to the motion to go into supply had been carried by the house -and in both cases this was done unanimously-a minister of the crown rose and moved again that the house do now go into committee of supply. I do not wish to endanger the chances of this procedure being followed again by emphasizing the fact that on at least one of those occasions the next motion to go into supply was subjected to an amendment as well, but that is just to make the record complete.
In addition to these two occasions I have mentioned, namely May 6, 1953, and June 12, 1951, there was the occasion on August 27, 1946, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie referred earlier, when there was before this house an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply. That amendment suggested that consideration should be given to the continuation of the milk subsidy.
After a number of hon. members had spoken, including a number of Liberal members who spoke in favour of the subject matter of the amendment, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested that it might be regarded not as a vote of confidence or non-confidence in the government but that there should be a free vote. On that occasion, unlike the ones in 1951 and 1953 to which I have referred, there was a recorded vote, a division of the house. Even so, enough Liberals voted with those of us on

the opposition side of the house for the amendment to carry, but the government was not defeated and no election was brought on.
The reason nothing of that nature happened was that the government had said in advance it was not to be regarded as a vote of nonconfidence in the government. Accordingly, as soon as the milk subsidy amendment had been carried a minister of the crown moved that the house go into committee of supply. That second motion carried, we went into committee of supply and the business of the house went on.
I submit that the picture is becoming very clear as a result of these incidents. The hon. member for Rosthern made quite a speech this afternoon during which he gave us a few pointers on procedure and on the constitutional nature of our democracy. He made it clear that he felt it was his responsibility to try to keep the present government in office. The logical conclusion to be drawn from the position he takes, in the light of these various instances to which I have referred, is that when there is an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply, if the government says it is a motion of non-confidence and all Liberals must vote against it, they do vote against it; if the government says it is not a motion of non-confidence, that they like it, that they think it should pass, then Liberals vote for it; but if the government says it is not a motion of confidence or non-confidence, that they have no opinion, that they are prepared to let the members of the house have a free vote, then on an occasion such as that the hon. member for Rosthern and other Liberals vote as they feel they should on that particular issue.
I suggest that the picture has become somewhat confused, but at any rate surely this much is clear from what has come out of these debates on amendments to motions to go into committee of supply. We have had a clear indication as to where the government stands. Having been willing on some occasions to accept the opinion of the house, at least for its own guidance, and still feel it was not defeated; having been willing on other occasions to accept the subject matter of the amendment as satisfactory to the government, does it not follow that when the government says "No", when it says "This is a motion of non-confidence", when it says to the Liberal members of the house, "You must vote against it", that means the government is opposed to the subject matter of that amendment?
I suggest that if the government does not want to be left in the position of being unalterably opposed to proceeding with the
16, 1955	3821
South Saskatchewan River Project construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and the irrigation project, it should on this occasion do as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested and permit a free vote of the members of this house.
We know where the Minister of Agriculture stands. As far as the project of the dam is concerned we know of all the documents he has pulled out of his pockets and the different statements he has made. But let it be said in all fairness to the minister that he is in favour of the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. We know also from his forthright statements, both inside and outside the house, that the Prime Minister is not yet in favour of recommending to parliament the appropriation of the necessary money to go ahead with this project.
But what we do not know on any free basis is where all the hon. members of this house stand. We have had votes in the past that make it pretty clear that members of the opposition groups in this house favour proceeding with this project. But we do not really know where Liberal members stand. I suggest that it might be to the advantage of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and other members of the government to find out where Liberal members stand. They will not find out simply by saying that this is a motion of non-confidence and therefore they must vote it down. If they will say, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said on August 27, 1946, that this is a free vote, or if they will accept it on the terms on which the Prime Minister accepted the motions in 1951 and 1953, we would have a chance to find out where the Liberal members of this house stand. I think that would be of value to the Prime Minister.
Of course if he wants to get advice from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek who is trying to interrupt me, I am sure he is ready to give it to him at any time.
It is obvious from what I have been saying that I feel strongly about this project. I believe it is good for Canada as a whole. I feel that it should be proceeded with as soon as possible, but it is obvious that the hurdle we must get over first is the question of what the government is going to do. I suggest that the government would be well advised to find out where we all stand in this House of Commons, and the best way to do that is to permit a free vote on the amendment now before the house.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, since members from Saskatchewan who sit on this side of the house have been referred to on several occasions, I think I should take

South Saskatchewan River Project just a moment or two before the vote to state my position. There have been volumes of discussion on this topic. There have been royal commissions and investigations, and I think probably every angle of the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam has been thoroughly explored.
I stated my position last year, as can be found in Hansard, as being in favour of the project for three main reasons. First, as an irrigation project it would be an undertaking in the national interest. Second, as a power project it would justify itself. I emphasized last year that assuring as it would a constant water supply for the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina it would be a project of value, not only to Saskatchewan, but because these are two of the larger cities of Saskatchewan it would be in the national interest.
I indicated at that time that it would make a considerable change in the geography of Saskatchewan. After all, Saskatchewan is in Canada, and the project can be tied in for that reason. I pointed out that the construction of this dam would create a lake about two-thirds the size of lake Erie. To have such a body of water in the Palliser triangle would certainly, from every way you look at it, be in the national interest. I just want to restate those three points, without going into detail at this time.
There is no body of opinion in Saskatchewan opposed to the building of this dam. I remember well when the Prime Minister spoke in Regina during the last election. He dealt with this very question right in the heart of Saskatchewan, and he told us in his forthright manner that at this time the Saskatchewan dam would not be constructed. That is not saying no to the project, any more than it is saying no to a national health plan in Canada; but at the moment, in the judgment of the government, this does not seem to be the time to do it.
After all, this side of the house is responsible to the nation as a whole and must use its judgment in that way. Here perhaps I should not be too positive, because this is only my second year here; but it is all very well for the opposition to bring up resolutions or amendments that cover a very large field. As a matter of fact there is no limit to the field of resolutions that may be placed on the order paper by the opposition side. We on this side are saddled with the responsibility not only of promoting ideas, but this side of the house has the definite responsibility of doing the work. The opposition does the talking, but this part of the house does the work. It has the responsibility of finding the money for it.


Mr. Gillis:: You are not losing any weight.


Henry Philip Mang: I have the fullest confidence that the national business, which is the concern and responsibility of this government, is being conducted in a way that will redound to the national interest from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
I do not like to mention politics or political angles, but it has been stressed by several that in Saskatchewan this matter has been a political football. I want to tell this house that I have been in politics in Saskatchewan, if you wish to know, since 1925, when I attended my first nominating convention. That goes back quite a way. If anyone talks about playing political football, I think I know at least a little about it. I do not know what our C.C.F. friends in Saskatchewan would do with respect to digging up election issues if they did not have this issue to bring up.
If anyone in Saskatchewan has made the Saskatchewan dam a political football it has been our socialist friends in that province. Perhaps they would be in a sense economically happy, but I am telling this house they would be extremely unhappy if the Saskatchewan dam were built, because they bring that out from time to time and, along with the general socialist story of the broken promises the Liberal party has been strewing throughout Saskatchewan, this is always one of the promises that is dragged out of the basket at election time. If anyone has made this issue a political football, it is our socialist friends in the province of Saskatchewan, and everyone in Saskatchewan knows that.
I am not afraid. I have no hesitation in voting against this amendment, because most of the people in my area, and I believe most of the people in Saskatchewan, are beginning to see the political angle of this issue and who are using it as a political football. If I cast my vote, and I am recorded in Hansard as voting against the amendment, I can project myself two or three years hence, should I again be a candidate. I can see someone planted in the back of the hall when I happen to be getting right down to the core of things with regard to the splendid record of this government; I can see him pop up and say, "What about the Saskatchewan dam?"
That has been played over and over again, and they are not going to get by with it this time; that is certain. I have no qualms of conscience whatsoever in casting my vote as a vote of confidence in favour of the government. I am not going to vote against the construction of the dam, but I am going to vote against this amendment.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being caught in a nutcracker, the Saskatchewan members on

opposite sides of the house, I am going to say a few words on this subject. I have listened to discussion of the Saskatchewan dam in this house for a long time. As I understand it, at the present time practically everyone in Saskatchewan, including the Minister of Agriculture, wants to build that dam. The drawback seems to have been that the Prime Minister is still doubtful whether the project is in the national interest. I assume he is wondering whether he can justify such an expenditure by the federal government in one province for the purpose for which it is intended. I am going to try to help him out a little.
We have already had an expression of opinion from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. I am going to say something now on behalf of the province from which I come. I think he is quite justified in concluding at this time that he is quite safe in making the expenditure, on the grounds he himself sets out, but he is afraid he may be accused in other parts of Canada of subsidizing power in the province of Saskatchewan. Now, he can disabuse his mind of that charge, because he is on safe ground when he is able to tell the rest of the people of Canada that Saskatchewan has a legitimate reason to ask the federal government to make an expenditure of some $62 million in that province, even if it is to some extent going to help the development of power. In the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, as far as the province of Ontario is concerned, one of the greatest advantages this province is going to get is the power development at Niagara falls. So indirectly the province of Ontario is going to be heavily subsidized in the provision of power for the future through the St. Lawrence seaway. The people of Saskatchewan are going to pay their proportionate share in helping to develop that power as a sideline of the St. Lawrence seaway project.
If anyone is still doubtful on that point all he has to do is say we have been looking at the future of power in Canada, and we have decided that not far away is the possibility of atomic energy; so in searching around for a place to set up a pilot plant, which is going to cost the federal government some money, we have decided that we are going to establish in this province of Ontario an atomic energy reactor in co-operation with the province, in order that we may be in that field of power in the future. So we are assisting the province of Ontario on two counts in the development of power.
On that score the Prime Minister is legitimately entitled now, after canvassing the situation for a long time, to say to his supporters that the time has come for the people
South Saskatchewan River Project of Canada as a whole to look upon this project in Saskatchewan as a national project.
In the second place, in view of the fact that, according to what I heard this afternoon in debate, the province is prepared to spend some $78 million in this development, the federal government's share to be about $62 million, I think the province is carrying a fair share. We are going to develop Canada for the future. As we build up our country through immigration and other means I hope we are not going to confine our thinking just to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and consider them as the great centres, with the rest of the country as the hewers of wood and drawers of water. I assume that we are going to do something to expand the economy in every province so we may be able to accommodate more people.
From listening to discussions of the matter and reading something about it, I understand that with the development of power through this project there is a possibility of getting some kind of a diversified economy. At the present time it is a wheat economy, a one-crop economy. This economy is subject to the whims of the elements. If it could be diversified by some industrial expansion on the prairies, through this power development, the chances are that over the long pull it may be possible to save in wheat subsidies more than the amount of money that is being asked should be put into this particular project. In any case, I think members in all parts of the house should take the question out of the realm of politics.
Someone mentioned the Canso causeway. We know that matter was the subject of long argument; 10 years, in fact. We had a commission on it. However, it was not until we sold the people in our end of the country on the idea that this was not a political issue, formed a committee in that province representative of all parties, and took the project completely out of the realm of politics, that we got some sanity into the thinking of all concerned. Everybody wanted it but nobody wanted the other fellow to get any advantage from it. Once we neutralized the question we went ahead and got something done.
I think that is the attitude that must be taken with respect to this project. I do not think there is anyone in the maritime provinces, at least, who would object to the federal government throwing in the amount of money that is asked here. We realize that Saskatchewan is in much the same position as the maritime provinces. There are many things they would like to do. There are many things they know should be done. If they had the finances with which to do it provincially they would undertake this project
South Saskatchewan River Project themselves. But they have not the finances provincially, and I think they are legitimately entitled to ask the rest of Canada to throw in something in order to help them do something that, in my opinion, will mean a great deal to that province in the future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.



ROBERT ALEXANDER HOODLEY

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a grievance at this time. My grievance is that there is a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the question of capital punishment whose report has not yet been made; and at 12.05 tonight Pacific time, or 3.05 a.m. our time, a young man will be hanged in Vancouver. I maintain he should not be hanged.
I raise this grievance as a matter of emergency because this is the only opportunity I shall have to save a man's life. I want to say this, sir, that in accordance with all the rules and the laws of parliament the matter has gone through the courts and has been considered by the cabinet.
I may say, sir, that I submitted a presentation to the only one who has the power to receive or consider any presentation on behalf of this man, Robert Alexander Hoodley. May I just read a part of my communication, because it states the grievance rather briefly. It is, as I have said, an emergency grievance because this man is to hang tonight, and only this parliament can save his life.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to indicate to him that I believe this parliament cannot do anything about that. The prerogative of mercy is one which is within the power of the crown. I may say that I am not too sure of my ground at the moment, but I intervene now because I do not want this incident to go without any comment on my part. It seems to me that not very long ago I read somewhere that matters pertaining to pardon are one of the very few prerogatives which remain within the realm of the crown. It is one of those residual powers which, of course, are vested in the cabinet but which the cabinet administers with the representative of Her Majesty. I hold in my hand May's eleventh edition.
All I am trying to do is indicate that what I may be saying now has a certain foundation

Mclvor
McMillan
Mang
Marler
Martin
Michaud
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Murphy (Westmorland)
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pouliot
Power (Quebec South)
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Prudham
Purdy
Reinke

of truth. At page 461 of May's eleventh edition I find this, for instance:
A bill for a general pardon, or act of grace, as it is commonly termed, originates with the crown, and is read once only in each house, all the member being uncovered, after which it receives the royal assent in the ordinary form. Such a bill cannot be amended by either house of parliament, but must be accepted in the form in which it is received from the crown, or rejected.
If May, at page 461 in his eleventh edition, writes in this fashion about a bill relating to a general pardon, that it must be either accepted or rejected as it originates from the crown, it certainly indicates our limitations in regard to the prerogative of mercy as exercised by the crown upon the advice of the members of the council.
Having issued a caveat, I am not going any farther. I am going to let the hon. member proceed, but I should like to mention this because there may be other such instances. I promise the hon. member and the house I shall look into the point further in order to make sure that I am not erring in my contention at the moment. It seems to me that this is not the type of subject matter which can be raised as a grievance on a motion to go into supply. See "Government and Parliament" by Herbert Morrison, p. 81; Keith's "British Cabinet System", second edition by N. H. Gibbs, pp. 352-3; see also House of Commons debates, vol. VI, February 11, 1875, pp. 83-88; Todd's "Parliamentary Government in England", as revised by Spencer Walpole, vol. I, pp. 205-210.


Harold Edward Winch: I appreciate your remarks very much, Mr. Speaker. I think you understand that I am not discussing anything which has to do with the prerogative of a general expression of mercy, but this grievance deals with only one case. As you have said I may proceed, I should like to do so because it must be done tonight. I am raising this question in order to ask the members of the House of Commons to request the cabinet to exercise their prerogative of mercy and revise a decision they have made. I refer to the case of Robert Alexander Hoodley, who has been sentenced to hang tonight.
Since my time is short I am going to present the case very briefly. This young man, Robert Alexander Hoodley, was born in Shanghai in December, 1934, and because of an unfortunate family situation developed a serious abnormal behaviourism. The experience of going through the war years as a very young child also had a detrimental effect. I believe his record amply demonstrates a very unstable nature, and discloses that he was subject to violent and inexplicable reactions.
Administration of Justice
He was examined by Dr. R. A. E. Richmond of the child guidance clinic in 1950 and found to be in a mental condition. Since the date of the homicide he has been examined by Dr. Richmond and Dr. Whitman, who are both very highly regarded psychiatrists, and I am given to understand that he has been classified as an aggressive psychopath, and in the opinion of the examining doctors is given to violent, impulsive behaviour that can explode almost spontaneously because he appears to be motivated by a hairtrigger stimulus.
The person killed by Mr. Hoodley was the stepfather of his fiancee. It is a matter of record that Miss Patricia Walsh, the fiancee, told Mr. Hoodley that her stepfather had forced sexual relations upon her. This being the case, I think it can be understood why on the spur of the moment young Hoodley took the impulsive action which resulted in the committing of homicide. One cannot condone this young man's action, and without any question of doubt he must be placed in an institution where society would be protected from his impulsive neuroticism.
However, in view of all the circumstances I do feel that the death penalty, which is mandatory by law, should be commuted by the governor general in council to a term of life imprisonment. This matter went before the cabinet last Friday. Because I understand I cannot be given information before it becomes public, I was not notified until 2.45 this afternoon-though I asked for the information last Saturday-that the cabinet had turned down this plea for clemency.
In view of the fact there is now a committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment; in view of the fact it is hoped by the joint chairmen of the committee and all the members that we can have a report on capital punishment this session; in view of the fact that here we have a case where all the evidence shows that the man is an aggressive neurotic and that he shot his fiancee's stepfather because of the rape of his fiancee, I say there is only one power now that can save this boy's life and put him under guard in an institution, and that is this House of Commons. I recognize that the House of Commons can only advise the Prime Minister and the cabinet. The House of Commons can only ask the Prime Minister and the cabinet to meet-to meet tonight-and give at least a stay of execution, but with the hope of commutation of sentence to life imprisonment.
Sir, it is not very often I ask anything of this nature, but I feel strongly about it. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for having

Administration oj Justice given me the opportunity to speak to him today. I know I am not alone in thinking as I do. Other members of all parties feel the same way, and have spoken to the Prime Minister.
Sir, because it is now approaching ten o'clock, and because I do not want this application wiped out by Your Honour calling it ten o'clock, I shall conclude by asking the House of Commons-the only group who can now do it-to request the Prime Minister and the cabinet to meet tonight and commute this sentence which, if they do not intervene, will be fulfilled by a boy being hanged, a boy who is neurotic, aggressive, hairtrigger, and who shot a man because his fiancee was raped by her stepfather. If they do not intervene the sentence will be carried out at 3.05 E.D.T.
Sir, I thank you for the opportunity given to me to speak on this matter. I shall not move any amendment, but shall rest in the hope that the House of Commons will express its opinion that this sentence should not be carried out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, a discussion of this kind is quite irregular, and has been refused by Mr. Speaker at Westminster on more than one occasion. I appreciate the hon. member's intense feeling about this matter, but I can assure him that he is misinformed about certain of the facts, or certain of the things he has mentioned as facts in connection with this case.
The case was very carefully considered by those who had the constitutional responsibility to consider it, and it is not a responsibility that anyone enjoys having to exercise. It was very carefully considered on two occasions. On the first occasion it was considered because the time at which it had to be considered had arrived, and a conclusion was reached after a very serious study of the record of the facts that were proved, and that

are not in accord with the information the hon. member has and in which I am sure the hon. member honestly believes.
The facts that were before us were the facts that had been proved before the court. There are very eminent psychologists who believe that our law is not as it should be, but we have to apply it as it exists. There was a serious and honest endeavour to reach a proper conclusion. A recommendation for His Excellency was prepared and was signed; but before it reached His Excellency news arrived that a court in British Columbia had granted a reprieve to allow special application to be made for an appeal to the supreme court. That application was made, for special leave to appeal to the supreme court. It was denied.
After it was denied the case was reconsidered, and we had all the facts before us. The hon. member, in his approach to me, told me quite frankly that he had no new facts, but felt that we had not made a proper appreciation of those that were before us. Well, we had the constitutional responsibility of making that appreciation and to us it appeared, as it appeared to the jury and to the court of appeal, to be a cold-blooded murder, committed under circumstances which, in accordance with practice that has been followed in recommendations to the crown, would not justify a recommendation for interference with the course of the law.
We had to come to that conclusion, and we came to that conclusion. There has never been any occasion when there was an attempt by any House of Commons, either here or in the United Kingdom, to go behind the exercise of that terrible responsibility we have to discharge.
On motion of Mr. Argue the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 17, 1955