1955-02-16

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: 
Mr. Rowe:: Did I understand the minister to say that there will be a reduction in the interest rates on loans from banks generally?


Robert Henry Winters: On mortgage money under the National Housing Act.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Will this affect pre-payments that have been made one month ahead to cover the month of February?


Robert Henry Winters: This will cover only applications dating from tomorrow morning.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Barbara Norma Demaine Davies.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Reta Muriel Hadden Moffit.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Meta Avard Wheatley Griffin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Emma Melite Latvaityte Vairogs.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Marie Jeanne D'Arc Marcelle Bernier	Lemieux.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Lois Audrey Jemima Patch Howell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Dorothy Izen-berg Lenetsky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of George Reilly Hunter.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Donald William Downie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Rita Barlatti Devlin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruby Kitts Shea.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Margaret Pearl McNamara Rowlatt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mabel King-horn Marshall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Shirley Norah Farrar Mizener.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Jane Schubert Clark Bernard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Irene Joan Fabian Jefford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Lois Silby Walker Torunski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Lillian Dorothy Menzies Drennan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Henry Edwin Lasnier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Elsa Kremer Ellmaurer.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Christine Bennie Kelly Mooney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Shirley Patricia King Craddock.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Nomi Meijero-wicz Goldenstein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Edith Dora Hyndman Ross.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Irene Annetta Thomas Bromby.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Arthur Edmund Oliver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Joseph Zawiski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Mary Jagiello Kaczynski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Eleanor Honor Connolly Sutcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Marie Laur-enza Suzanne Bolduc Hawkins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Daniel Joseph MacLean.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Has the Department of Defence Production let any contracts within the last year to F. W. Jones & Son, Bedford, Quebec, to supply a Royal Canadian Air Force base in British Columbia with pallets?
2.	If so, how many pallets were ordered?
3.	Where and when were the tenders for these pallets advertised?
4.	How are they being shipped to British Columbia?
5.	Were any tenders submitted from British Columbia firms? If so, what are the names of those who tendered?
6.	Have any pallets been ordered by the defence production department, during the past year from other firms in Quebec or Ontario to be used in British Columbia?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
6.	Yes. Four contracts covering a total of
17,000	pallets were placed with firms in Ontario and Quebec for delivery to Royal Canadian Navy bases in British Columbia. Included among those invited to tender were ten British Columbia firms of which one firm only submitted quotations.
1953 ELECTION-GOVERNMENT PLANES USED BY CABINET MINISTERS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Were any government planes used by cabinet ministers in the general election of 1953? If so, how many?
2.	How much was paid for the use of same?
3.	How was payment made?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes-7.
2.	$8,304.28.

3. By cheques in favour of the Receiver General of Canada for which departmental receipts were issued on October 27, 1953, and which were deposited forthwith into revenue.



PUGWASH, N.S., HARBOUR  DREDGING

Mr. Brooks:: What was the cost of dredging Pugwash harbour and Pugwash entrance for each of the last five calendar years?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1949-50, nil; 1950-51, nil; 1951-52, nil; 1952-53, nil; 1953-54, $83,060.41.



EXCISE AND SALES TAXES, AUTOMOBILES AND FARM MACHINERY

Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the total amount of (a) excise tax; (b) sales tax, collected on each of the following articles sold in Canada during the year 1954: automobiles, farm trucks, farm water pumps, farm steel stanchions, farm litter and feed carriers and track, farm electric water heaters, farm hay and other forks, milk filter discs, 8 gallon milk cans, mechanical milk coolers?


Mr. McCann:: Excise tax collected during the year 1954 on automobiles was $76,562,846.67; trucks are exempt from excise tax; no segregation of sales tax collections according to articles is made, hence information is not available concerning sales tax collected on automobiles or farm or other trucks.
The following items are exempt from excise and sales taxes: Farm water pumps, farm steel stanchions, farm litter carriers and track therefor, farm feed carriers and track therefor, farm hay and other forks, milk filter discs, 8-gallon milk cans, mechanical milk coolers.
Farm electric water heaters, if of the immersion type and used in connection with watering livestock, are also exempt from excise and sales taxes.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	What will be the total mileage of the trans-Canada highway when completed?
2.	What will be the total mileage in each province?
3.	How many miles of the trans-Canada highway have been gravelled in each province to date?
4.	How many miles have been paved in each province to date?
5.	What is the average cost of construction per
mile in (a) New Brunswick:	(b) Ontario; (c)
Saskatchewan; (d) British Columbia?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	An estimated total of 4,497 miles in nine provinces.
2.	Newfoundland, 610; Prince Edward Island, 74; Nova Scotia, 310; New Brunswick, 388; Ontario, 1,412; Manitoba, 305; Saskatchewan, 414; Alberta, 292; British Columbia, 692.

3.	Application of traffic gravel is a temporary measure to facilitate traffic and protect the sub-grade prior to the application of base course and paving. No records are kept as such gravel is later incorporated with the base course.
4.	Newfoundland, nil; Prince Edward Island, 46.1; Nova Scotia, 2.7; New Brunswick, 52.2; Ontario, 314.8; Manitoba, 130.1; Saskatchewan, 230.4; Alberta, 150.9; British Columbia, 138.8.
5.	As yet none of the provinces have submitted final claims for completed sections of the highway. Average cost per mile cannot be established until final costs are known.



STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE WHARF

Mr. Maliais:: 1.	Was repair work on the wharf at Ste. Anne de Beaupre during the year 1954 modified or discontinued on instructions from the engineering branch of the public works department, at Quebec, following objections or representations from the individual holding the lease on part or the whole of the land along the wharf?
2.	If so, will the work be continued during the 1955 season?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.



&quot;DUSTY&quot; TRADES DISEASES

Mr. Fraser (St. John's East):: Has any consideration been given by the Department of National Health and Welfare to the problem in Canada of diseases arising from working in the "dusty" trades?


Mr. Martin:: Yes. The program of the occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare places major emphasis on the problem of diseases of the dusty trades in Canada. The latest X-ray diffraction equipment is maintained in the occupational health laboratories for the study of offending materials in industrial dusts. In addition an electron-microscope has been acquired so that attention may be given to finer dusts known to produce lung disease. A free service is extended by the Department of National Health and Welfare under which dusts suspected of causing dust diseases may be sent to the department for laboratory examination. Special assistance is also rendered to provincial health departments, on request, in surveys of dust conditions in industry.



COD LANDINGS, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What was the total catch of cod landed In Gloucester county, New Brunswick, in each of the following years: 1925, 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954?
Orders for Returns
2.	What was the total catch of flounders or plaice landed in Gloucester county. New Brunswick, in each of the above mentioned years?
3.	What was the total catch of haddock landed in Gloucester county, New Brunswick, in each of the years mentioned in question 1?
4.	What was the total number of draggers licensed in Gloucester county, in each year from 1947 to 1954 inclusive?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1, 2 and 3:
Cod	Haddock	Plaice(Cwts.)	(Cwts.)	(Cwts.)1925 ....	. 176,989	1,498	-1930 ....	.. 120,781	360	-1935 ....	. 130,700	3,897	9911940 ....	,. 113,998	3,853	1,6341945 ....	,. 129,283	-	4,2311947 ....	.. 182,192	55	1,1171948 ....	,. 212,884	173	6,8321949 ....	.. 251,824	101	14,6171950 ....	.. 196,750	15	54,4081951 ....	.. 219,845	2,376	63,3441952 ....	.. 209,142	2,184	66,9921953 ...	.. 176,626	5,473	69,6821954 . .. ,	.. 201,890	24,679	78,2864. Dragger licences	are issued	by fiscalyears, and	the following information is on	that basis:	1947-48, 5;	1948-49, 12;	1949-50,
18; 1950-51, 18; 1951-52, 20; 1952-53, 32; 1953-54, 42; 1954-55, 49.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1. How many persons in Canada, 70 years of age or over, by provinces, are in receipt of old age security?
2. How many persons, if any, 70 years of age or over, by provinces, in receipt of old age security, are receiving less than $40 a month?
3.	For what reasons and by what authority are the pension payments to such persons less than $40 a month?


STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE WHARF
Mr. Maliais:: 1.	Does the federal government own the bed of the wharf at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, Quebec, the approaches adjacent to the said wharf, and the entrance to such wharf?
2.	If so, has the government leased, wholly or partly, the land owned by it along the wharf at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, and for what consideration?
3.	Since what date has this land been leased, and has there been a change of lessees in the last ten years?
4.	If there has been a change of lessees, on what date did it occur and who is the holder of the existing lease?
5.	What amount has been received by the government on account of such lease to February 1, 1955?


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE, ALBERTA
Mr. Quelch:: 1. How many farmers received payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in subdivisions

Conservation
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of special district number 3, in the province of Alberta, for the crop of 1953?
2.	What were their names and the location of land on which payments were made?
3.	What was the amount of payment and average yield per acre in each case?
4.	What was the cause of crop failure in each case, drought, hail or frost?



CONSERVATION


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1952, 1953 and 1954 I moved a motion identical with the one which I am moving today. In view of my own conviction and belief that action along the lines I suggest is urgently needed, I return to the fray with undiminished ardour in the knowledge that there is growing support for this resolution, not only in this house but in the country, growing support for the calling of a dominion-provincial conference such as that which I suggest to deal with this extremely important question.
Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that, in my opinion, the question of conservation of natural resources is not a partisan problem. It is a problem that concerns us all in this house and all in the country, regardless of our political or economic theories. In my opinion conservation offers ample scope for the application of public ownership, co-operative ownership, private ownership and private enterprise. I therefore judge, Mr. Speaker, that in discussing this question we are meeting it as Canadians facing a question that must be dealt with in the very near future if we are to arrest some of the erosion and loss of natural resources that are going on today.
While in recent years provincial governments and the federal government have given effect to some measures designed to heal the scars in our land caused by the exploitation of our natural resources over a period of many years, in my opinion the pace is too slow and the actions of governments are too unco-ordinated and too unrelated to meet the situation effectively.
In previous discussions on this question I dealt at some length with the historical aspects of the problem of conservation and outlined in detail some proposals I put before the house concerning the objectives for a sound national conservation policy, and it is

not my intention to repeat those arguments today. My argument today will be directed principally to three points. The first is that many years ago there was a recognition in this house of a measure of responsibility by this parliament for conservation as a national problem. The second is that because of the success that has resulted from federal and state co-operation in the United States, experience clearly teaches us that dominion-provincial co-operation would bring much greater results than have the activities in this field by federal and provincial governments to date. My third point is that if we are to spend the sums of money that will be required to develop a national conservation policy, before spending that money efficiently and satisfactorily we certainly require a federal-provincial conference to lay down a national policy accepted across Canada.
I have taken the opportunity to discuss this question with a large number of people who are interested in the problem. Last year it was my privilege to attend the public conference called by the Canadian Forestry Association in association with the Agricultural Institute of Canada and the Engineering Institute of Canada for the purpose of restating a long-range policy for the management of our renewable natural resources. At that conference I repeatedly heard the opinion expressed that we are moving too slowly in the direction of the conservation and development of our natural resources and in the development of policies to meet the situation effectively. While governments may continue to pay lip service to the principles involved in conservation, their actions are too limited and often too unrelated, in my opinion, to turn the tide of continued exploitation and neglect.
I might say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I was sorry there were not more provincial cabinet ministers at that conference. It was a conference that was called at considerable expense and it was well organized. But as far as I can remember, there were only one or two members of provincial cabinets present at that conference. I realize the difficulty inherent in this question. While I say that this parliament and the federal government have a responsibility in the matter of conservation of natural resources, for the calling of a conference and so on, I know that we cannot get effective action unless we get cooperation from the provinces in this respect. I recognize the difficulties that are entailed.
While it is repeatedly brought to our attention when dealing with this subject that the provinces have control of their natural resources, a reading of the debates of this house years ago indicates to me that parliament and

both old-time parties in this house have recognized the fact that the federal government has some responsibility with respect to a national conservation policy. In support of that contention, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the house the fact that on February 1, 1909, the late Sir Robert Borden moved the following resolution in this house:
That In the opinion of this house it is advisable to appoint a select standing committee on natural resources who shall have authority to inquire into and consider and report upon all matters appertaining to the conservation and development of the natural resources of Canada, including fisheries, forests, mines, minerals, waterways and water powers, and to whom may be referred from time to time any report, document or matter touching the subject which they are appointed to consider.
I think the introduction of that resolution into this house by such an important gentleman as the late Sir Robert Borden who was then leader of the opposition indicates the recognition that some responsibility rests with this parliament and the federal government for the consideration of conservation on a national basis.
When speaking in this debate Sir Robert Borden had this to say. I quote from column 356 of Hansard of the session of 1909:
We have had a great many stimulating addresses throughout the country on the importance of these great resources. One might expect that the parliament of Canada would be one of the great forces in awakening public interest in our resources, and the consideration of means by which the development and conservation of these resources should be carried out.
Then later on in his speech Sir Robert Borden said:
So, while men everywhere in Canada are lifting up their voices for the conservation and development of our natural resources, it seems to me that some initiative should come from parliament, and that the members of parliament, without regard to party, sinking for this purpose all partisan considerations, should take up this work and endeavour to accomplish something for the good of the country.
In my opinion we should all be able to endorse the words spoken by the late Sir Robert Borden on that occasion. 1 certainly believe that we should expect the parliament of Canada to be one of the great forces in awakening public interest in our resources in this country.
Then later on in the same debate the then prime minister, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, rose to express his support for the principle of the motion in the following words which are found at column 371 of Hansard of the same date:
I am happy to say that I have no word of dissent to express regarding the principle involved in my hon. friend's motion.
By that it will be seen that Sir Wilfrid Laurier quite agreed that this parliament
Conservation
should appoint a committee-which was later appointed-to consider the question of resources on a national basis in Canada.
To illustrate further the necessity for cooperation between federal and provincial governments in the matter of conservation, in further support of my argument I wish to quote from a message to congress by the president of the United States in 1909 when referring to the work done by the national conservation commission in the United States. I might say that it seems, from reference to the record, that there was a great surge of interest in the early days of this century in the question of conservation not only in Canada but in the United States; but since that time there has been a great lag, a great deal of inertia and a great lack of interest on the part of this parliament and succeeding federal governments.
This is what the president of the United States on that occasion had to say in part:
The principle of the community of interest among all our people in the great natural resources runs through the report of the national conservation commission and the proceedings of the joint conference.
These resources, which form the common basis of our welfare, can be wisely developed, rightly used, and prudently conserved only by the common action of all the people acting through their representatives in state and nation. Hence, the fundamental necessity for co-operation. Without it we shall accomplish but little and that little badly.
That has been our experience in Canada. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the pressing problem of conservation, we have accomplished but little and in many respects that little badly. As the result of the interest in parliament and in the country at that time an act was passed by the house in 1909 to establish a commission for the conservation of natural resources, and by an order in council of September 3, 1909, a national commission was appointed. There was a different attitude to the whole question in 1909 from what we find today in the government and in the house. It is evident from reading the reports of the commission-I have read them through completely and they are well worth studying-that the commission made a very comprehensive study and review of the whole situation with respect to renewable natural resources in Canada. Unfortunately it was abolished by an act of parliament in 1921, and since that time successive governments have dealt with the problem of conservation on a piecemeal basis.
A tremendous amount of material and information were gathered by that commission, and in my opinion a great deal of the good

Conservation
work that the commission did was wasted by the dropping of the question by the government of the day. I wish to quote from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, March 13, 1954, an article entitled "Ottawa's Conservation Help Niggardly" by J. Bascom St. John. I quote it because it is an excellent article which deals with this subject with knowledge and clarity and is most informative. Out of respect for the person who wrote the article I think I should quote it rather than paraphrase it. I like to give credit to those who express their ideas in such a clear and excellent manner. The article reads in part as follows:
No comparison of Canadian and American government expenditures produces more dramatic contrasts than those on conservation. The two governments take completely different views of the matter. The United States spends lavishly on a widely varied program. This has been a fundamental element of its national policy since 1908.
That is the reason for the success of the conservation programs in the United States. I continue:
The Canadian government, on the other hand, has no discernible policy on conservation. It does spend money for this purpose, but its activities are largely determined by political factors, and in almost all cases are on a project basis. In nearly every instance, comparable expenditures by another authority are required.
I am not underestimating our efforts. There has been a great deal of good done by various federal government agencies but in my opinion their efforts have been too piecemeal and too unrelated to provincial programs. The writer goes on to say:
Canada's failure to pursue a consistent national policy on conservation is all the more strange in that 45 years ago this country was in the forefront of the conservation movement. In 1907 a commission of conservation was set up under the chairmanship of the Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton, and included a large number of representative Canadians. The commission's function was chiefly fact-finding and research. It pursued an active publication policy, and while it functioned, conservation and related matters such as town planning were kept strongly before the public. In this writer's view, a great mistake was made when the commission was abolished in 1921.
I agree with the writer. I think it was a backward step to abolish that commission in 1921. I quote one more short paragraph:
The Canadian government sometimes suggests that it has no specific obligation to support conservation because natural resources were made a provincial responsibility by the British North America Act. The projects it does accept it claims to regard as having "national interest". So far as can be judged by the record, this is a somewhat capricious standard. But since virtually all the taxable wealth of the country derives from natural resources it is clear the dominion government on its own terms has a primary interest in maintaining and developing them at the most productive level possible. If anything is a national obligation to the present and future generations, this is.
[Mr. Herridge.l
I want to make a few comparisons between what has been spent on over-all conservation policies by the governments of the United States and Canada. In 1953 the government of Canada spent approximately $30 million on what could be termed conservation projects. Just think of it-six-tenths of 1 per cent of the national budget in that year. I am going to compare this expenditure with the amounts spent by the United States government in the same year.
The United States government spent $1,122 million on the conservation of land and water resources in 1953. In the same year it spent $107 million for the conservation of forest resources. It spent for fish and wildlife resources $34 million in the same year and for the survey of various other resources $25 million. In addition, the production and marketing division of the United States department of agriculture spent $308 million on various projects of conservation development, and the soil conservation service spent another $66 million for conservation projects.
In total the United States government spent in one year on conservation programs more than $2 billion. I wish to point out that if a Canadian government spent in proportion to its population and national wealth it would spend about $180 million on conservation projects this year. In fairness I must recognize the fact that the United States is forced to spend considerably more in proportion to the expenditure in Canada on the conservation of natural resources as the process of exploitation and destruction of natural resources in the United States, because it is an older country, is much further advanced than it is in Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that with a national conservation policy established as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments we could well afford to spend five times the amount we are spending at the present time. As I said before, I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the good work done to date by the federal and provincial governments and by some sectors of private industry. There are certain industries in the country, particularly certain sections of the lumber industry, strangely enough, that are leading the way in the practice of conservation policies. I pay tribute to their efforts and also to the work done by such organizations as the Canadian Forestry Association, the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Engineering Institute of Canada, a multitude of other organizations and many individuals who have been interested in the problem of conservation for a long time.

However, there is increasing evidence that the provinces and interested organizations and individuals are coming more and more to recognize the need for a national conservation policy with some leadership on the part of the federal government. The experience of the United States is in my opinion conclusive proof of the beneficial effects of cooperation between federal and provincial or state governments in this field. In the light of their experience I think we would be well advised to proceed along the lines I suggest.
Under our constitutional circumstances the role of the federal government must necessarily be that of a co-ordinating agency willing to supplement the efforts of the individual provinces when necessary from the national treasury in order to give effect to a national policy on conservation. The relationship between the federal government and the provinces calls for a dominion-provincial conference on this question with sound planning, good will and a determination to succeed. I say again that this conference is necessary to decide on a major policy with respect to conservation in Canada before you can satisfactorily expend money in the development of any policy.
I am not taking a great deal of time today because I know there are a number of other members who want to have something to say on this question. Before concluding I want to quote from an address given by Mr. F. H. Kortright, president of the conservation council of Ontario, at a meeting held in Ottawa on November 22, 1954, at a preview of the film known as "Proud Land" which was sponsored by the Agricultural Institute of Canada. Mr. Kortright has taken a great interest in this question throughout the years, and in a very few sentences I believe he gives expression to what is a common sentiment across this country at this time. This is what he had to say, in part, in concluding his remarks:
Yet it is to government that we must turn for leadership in conservation action, if we are to enjoy, to the full, long-lasting abundance from natural resources.
In this wonderful Canada of ours, still a land of comparative plenty, there is no reason why, given the will to do so, we could not become a nation dedicated to the conservation and wise use of renewable natural resources. This could be a national project for the spiritual, moral and physical well-being of the people of this land, and, by example, for all other people of the world.
This is not a starry-eyed notion. It is not an impractical idea. But it implies leadership. Our federal and provincial governments have an opportunity today that they will not have 50, or even 25 years hence.
Any government announcing such a national policy, publicizing the facts which dictate it to be necessary policy, and giving continued leadership, 50433-77
Conservation
would be performing a service of supreme importance, not only to Canada, but to mankind. . . No policy would do more for the national economy of Canada. No policy would give greater assurance for the well-being of our children and grandchildren.
I feel that Mr. Kortright has expressed the sentiments of the members of this house in excellent language and in excellent form. I said when I rose that I was returning to the fray with ardour and continued hope. My hopes were not only further stimulated because of the great interest in this subject in the house and in the country, but by the fact we have a very alive, alert and active Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). Last fall he made a trip into British Columbia and I can assure him that a number of the people with whom I have talked were very pleased in having him visit the province and were pleased with his keen interest in the problem of natural resources.
I am very optimistic, as a result of the introduction of this new blood into the department, that we shall possibly make some progress with this resolution in the near future. I urge the government to translate its awareness of this problem into effective action by calling a dominion-provincial conference with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest, water conservation and land use for Canada.
In conclusion, in our opinion, the overriding interests of the nation and the immediate interests of the provinces must be harmonized by some action along these lines if we are to conserve and develop our renewable natural resources to the advantage of this and future generations.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: At the outset I wish to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for the compliments he has paid to me, and under those circumstances I am sorry I shall have to disappoint him this afternoon by telling him I do not believe the time has come yet to accept the principle of his resolution. I agree with him, however, that conservation of our natural resources is undoubtedly one of the most important subjects than can be discussed in this house. For a number of years the hon. member for Kootenay West has provided an opportunity for such discussion by placing on the order paper a resolution similar to the one we have before us today.
1 certainly welcome, in common with many hon. members, I am sure, the opportunity afforded to discuss this very important problem of the conservation of our natural resources. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker,

Conservation
I have read the debates of the past several years and I am sure all hon. members will agree they have been very much worth while. I heard the hon. member for Kootenay West refer to the resolution which was moved by Sir Robert Borden in 1909, the principle of which was approved by the then prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He has said that since then such a committee has been established, and as a matter of fact it still exists. There is a standing committee of the house on resources, but it has not sat during the past few years. I hope it will sit this year to consider at least one of the bills that I will sponsor at this session.
The last time there was a discussion of a resolution similar to the one we have before us was on December 14, 1953. At that time I reviewed in some detail the actions taken by the federal government over the past few years to further the cause of conservation. I do not intend to repeat what I said at that time. The action taken by the federal government has included the passage of such important measures as the Canada Forestry Act; the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act; the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act; and this year we are currently studying the international rivers bill, which is a conservation measure. It has included also works performed under these acts and others, a good many of which come under my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), such as the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Generally speaking, the federal government is carrying on an extensive program in so far as the conservation of natural resources within the fields for which it is responsible is concerned. Part of the program is devoted to surveys and research of many types in the fields of agriculture, forestry and water resources. In so far as surveys are concerned one can see in this year's estimates that the amount to be spent for hydraulic surveys of the Columbia basin has been greatly increased for the benefit of the international joint commission studies of that basin. In the field of forestry research an amount has been provided in the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the building of a new forest products laboratory on the campus of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Plans have been made also to build a new forest products laboratory here in Ottawa, and a site has been chosen on the Montreal road. A contract has been let for the expansion of the forestry experimental station at Petawawa to provide additional facilities for research and for the research workers. Part of the program, sir,

is directed towards assisting the provinces financially with conservation work. That is a provincial responsibility. It is generally of such great importance that I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that provisions for assistance by the federal government are warranted. However, I must repeat something which has been said time and again in the house, that we must be ever mindful that the prime responsibility for the conservation of resources rests with the provincial governments.
I know the hon. member has already said that when I mention this I am repeating an old argument. However, I do not believe that the age of the argument weakens its strength, because it is a fact that the prime responsibility for the natural resources rests with the provinces. There now exists continuing co-operation between federal and provincial governments in many conservation fields, and I have no doubt that this co-operation has been of substantial benefit to Canada. It seems to me, however, sir, that the responsibility for initiating a conference such as the resolution proposes rests primarily with the provinces; and if this initiative is taken on a sufficiently broad basis I am sure the federal government would be prepared to consider the matter most carefully.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has asked that leadership be given by the federal government in the domain of conservation, and has said that we could act as co-ordinators of the policies of provincial governments in that field. Sir, we have no objection to giving leadership; we have no objection to acting as co-ordinators; but it seems to me that first we should be asked to co-ordinate by those whose activities would be co-ordinated. It seems to me that the suggestion that we act as co-ordinators should come from those whose activities would be coordinated by us.
I do not believe we can take upon ourselves the responsibility for deciding that policies of conservation in Canada, despite the fact that these matters lie primarily with the provinces, are going to be dealt with by the federal government and parliament, and that the provinces should have uniform policies. I do not believe we can do that. It is my belief that if we are to take any action by way of co-ordination we must wait until we are asked by the provinces to co-ordinate their activities. And since I have occupied my present office I have not been asked by any provincial governments to try to co-ordinate their activities in that field.
Another reason why I cannot accept the resolution is that I have grave doubts as to the success of a conference called for the

purpose of discussing the problems connected with all the renewable resources, as is suggested in the resolution, even if land use, forest, soil and water conservation are closely allied subjects. I suggest any such congress or conference should be preceded by individual meetings in the specialized fields, before any co-ordinated effort could be made by way of a joint congress.
This is one aspect of the matter which was clearly indicated as a result of the resources conference held in Ottawa in April of 1954, and to which the hon. member has referred. As he said, this conference was sponsored by five of Canada's national organizations, one of which was the Canadian Forestry Association. The hon. member for Kootenay West was there, and I was there and addressed the meeting. But, a number of provincial forest authorities declined to send representatives to this meeting which, they suggested, dealt with the conservation of too many resources. The reason they offered was that it involved a discussion of too many resources at one time. A number of papers were delivered at the meeting but, so far as I know, no published resolutions have resulted. Of course, valuable publicity favouring conservation generally came from the meeting; but I am led to believe the sponsors found that the whole field of renewable resources was too large an order for a conference of that kind.
As a result of this experience the same five organizations are now being asked to consider a proposal to sponsor the calling in 1956 of a conference to deal with forestry alone. It seems to me that the experience of last year must leave in one's mind grave doubts as to the possibility of covering in one meeting the field of all renewable resources in Canada.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that at this time I must oppose the hon. member's resolution.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have two regrets so far as this debate is concerned. The first is that it happens to come on a Wednesday when we will have debate for only half a day instead of a full day. I know there are many members who would like to take part in this discussion, but I am afraid some of them will not have the opportunity.
My second regret is that the minister is opposed to the general principle of the resolution. I had hoped that this year he would be prepared to support it. There is no question in my mind that the basic and most important matter with which as a country we must deal, from the long-term point of 50433-774
Conservation
view and having in mind the welfare of our people and the building up of a great nation, is the conservation of our soil, our forests, and our water and mineral resources.
That fact being accepted, I think there is no question that all of us should be prepared to take any means possible to further conservation measures. Certainly the general principle of the resolution is in those terms, with a view to having something definite in the nature of a scheme to bring about the conservation of these most essential resources, upon which our lives are built.
As to the importance of the problem, I would direct the attention of hon. members to a headline which appeared in this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette, where it says "Quebec Lumber will Last Fifty Years, Roos Predicts". Many people who do not read more than the headlines might draw the conclusion that that is a satisfactory condition: but so far as I am concerned it is alarming to think that in the great lumbering province of Quebec, according to this article, there is lumber sufficient to last for only 50 years more. The article says:
At present rates of consumption Quebec's lumber resources will last for more than 50 years, K. O. Roos, president Canadian Lumbermen's Association, said here yesterday.
The article goes on to say that provincial authorities have-
-warned that if the present deterioration of white and yellow birch continues the hardwood industry will have difficulty in maintaining its present scale of operations after the next 15 or 20 years.
Mr. Roos called for closer collaboration between tne industry and the federal and provincial governments.
This is an indication that the people concerned with the forest industries, including the lumbermen and those who are doing the cutting are alive to the necessity for co-operation between federal and provincial governments to conserve these most important forest resources. They are important from the point of view of the lumber they provide, but are obviously more important from the general conservation point of view, the maintaining of proper water levels, the preventing of spring run-off, soil erosion, and so on.
The minister brought up the matter of provincial rights in connection with this problem. That cry of the infringement of provincial rights in regard to what might be done from the dominion point of view in the matter of conservation has been frequently raised; but I should like to point out that soil erosion by wind and water, forest fires and other things of that kind which destroy our resources, are absolutely no respecters of provincial boundaries or of the British North America Act. In other words, we have a practical situation, as far

Conservation
as conserving our resources is concerned, with which we have to deal. To raise the cry of provincial rights in regard to this matter is completely begging the question.
I thought the minister was extremely coy in regard to this matter. He said he had not been asked, and therefore he did not think he should take any action until he was asked.


Jean Lesage: I admit that. But, may I go farther and say that last year when I was discussing forestry in one province at a luncheon I was told later that I should mind my own business because forestry was a provincial matter. I was told that by none other than the premier of the province.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it takes away from the general proposition that a lead in this matter has to come from some place, and the natural place that it should come from is the dominion government.
The minister took what I would call an old-maidish attitude in connection with this: "Nobody has asked me." That seems to me to be hardly in character with the hon. gentleman's usual way of going after matters. However, in spite of the discouragement he may have had from one provincial premier, I would hope that he will not let that stand in the way of instituting a system of conservation. There is no question whatever that the proper handling of conservation measures involves the co-operation of two or more provinces and the dominion government. In many instances there is just no question about it. May I give one example of that as far as the western prairies are concerned? All of the rivers which flow through the western prairies, with some minor exceptions such as the Milk river in Alberta, take their rise in the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains in Alberta, and then they flow on through Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A proper handling of these water resources, upon which the whole prosperity of the three prairie provinces depends, is not a matter for Alberta because they rise there, or a matter for Saskatchewan as far as the waters in the rivers of Saskatchewan are concerned. It is a matter which has to be dealt with in co-operation with the whole three prairie provinces, and there is no question that it has to be co-ordinated by the dominion government.
Western Canada is a good example because of the fact that it is particularly subject to and in danger of soil erosion. We have already had a great deal of erosion on the western prairies, particularly in the southern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan and in southeastern Manitoba. This has been mostly

wind erosion. A great deal of land was broken up there which, in my opinion at least, should never have been put under the plow. As a result, during the dry years, a great deal of the top soil has blown away.
As far as maintaining the water level is concerned, which of course is one of the main things that prevent this soil blowing, the maintenance of the flow of these western rivers is essential, because as long as you have that flow your water table is kept up, you have the water there which you can dam by creating artificial lakes. The south Saskatchewan dam, about which we have heard so much, is really entirely dependent on the flow of the south Saskatchewan river. As a result, as I said, it is a matter which has to be dealt with by the three provinces, or by some central authority acting with and for them.
A considerable amount has been done in regard to preventing soil erosion out there by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It is one of the most worth-while things that have been done in western Canada. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act succeeded in taking a certain amount of very dry land out of cultivation and getting it regrassed, and so forth, and it has been responsible for building a large number of small dams and thus conserving local supplies of water as well as larger dams for irrigation purposes.
The work of P.F.R.A. of course is a federal responsibility. The federal government carries it on. They work in conjunction with the provinces. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will say that he has ever had any difficulty with the provincial governments out there in regard to carrying on those P.F.R.A. activities. I think it is a perfect example, which disproves what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) said about the fact that the provinces had to move first in the matter, they have to ask us, and so forth, before we take any action. Here is a definite example of where the dominion government does take action, of where it has accomplished an extremely worth-while thing through giving leadership in this matter.
I do not want to take too much time in regard to our particular western problems, but from the conservation point of view they are our most important and essential problems. I should like to emphasize that. I would hope that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would consult with the ministers in the cabinet from the west, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, and become convinced of that fact and thus be more prepared to go ahead with those essential conservation measures.

As far as a conference of the provinces and the dominion is concerned in order to consider the setting up of a national plan of conservation, there are several very important matters, definite matters, which can be and should be considered. First of all, there are definite schemes which are needed immediately, which should be considered and a priority set up, and arrangements made as to how costs should be shared, and so forth. One of those conservation measures is a matter which would concern largely the dominion, and they should bear the major portion of the cost. In other cases it would be a matter which concerns chiefly the provinces, and the provinces should bear the major portion of the cost. That is one of the things on which a conference is essential in order to settle just how a particular scheme should be proceeded with and how the cost should be borne.
Then, there is the matter of future schemes, the long-term point of view. A definite plan should be worked out with respect to those schemes which are not needed immediately or urgently at the moment, but should be started and gone ahead with and how they are to be put into operation.
Then there is the very important matter of research. One of the most essential parts of the whole conservation picture is determining and finding the best methods of carrying on conservation of those different resources. There is the matter of education and publicity, both tied in quite closely together.
In order to get really widespread and general acceptance not only of the cost but of the methods which in many cases would perhaps be resented by certain individuals, a very wide use of publicity and education is necessary, and the dominion government is the only body that could possibly direct the publicity and education, and co-ordinate it.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for his persistence in bringing this matter to the attention of the house. At the same time I cannot help but commend the minister who replied for making the same excuse for paying no attention to the request that has been made for so many years. His excuse has been that the time has not come as yet. They want to wait and see what is going to develop. I think that this government will go down in history as one of the greatest wait and see governments that this country has had for a good many years.
Another remark that came from the hon. member was that the responsibility for a
Conservation
conference of that type rests with the province issuing the invitation. If I heard him correctly he said that as yet they have not been asked. That may be quite right in so far as all the provinces of Canada are concerned, but I am satisfied that a request has been made by the province of British Columbia for a conference with the federal authorities. I would refer the minister to the brief which was presented to this government on December 14, 1953.
He mentioned some plans that they had in mind. There is one especially which I hesitate to refer to, but in the light of what has been said to the effect that the federal government should be asked before they take any action I would like to ask the minister if they were asked to carry out this conservation of which they speak so highly and which is embodied in the bill for the control of international rivers. I should like to ask the minister if they were asked by the government to bring in that legislation.


Jean Lesage: Since I have been asked a question I assume I have the right to reply. In the case of the international rivers bill we have acted because that is our constitutional responsibility.


George William McLeod: To carry on with the question under discussion, I am glad to see that some action is being taken by various departments of this government. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is spending over $1 million in forest research. This is a step in the right direction. I have heard a lot today about co-ordination. I prefer to use the word co-operation, although it does not make any material difference. I would think that if we had a conference between the various interested parties which would co-ordinate, if you want to use that word, the efforts of the provinces and of the dominion, much more would be accomplished.
I am glad to note that the Department of Public Works is spending quite a sum for flood and river control. These are important things, especially in British Columbia, and we appreciate it very much.
Coming back to forestry, I am sure you are all aware that the forest industry in British Columbia is our greatest asset. A wide program is required for fire protection and reforestation. In this connection it is interesting to note that the provincial government will spend upwards of $4 million this year for that type of work. It is also interesting to note that the government of British Columbia is making earnest efforts through the issuance of forest management licences to control cutting and avoid wastage

Conservation
of our forest products. Under the provincial legislation the holders of permits in the province are allowed to cut only the natural growth in any one year on their limit. This is certainly a forward step in controlling the wastage of this asset.
I am deeply interested in another problem, that of water storage. I do not mean water storage for power, I refer to water storage for irrigation purposes. A few nights ago we heard considerable talk in this house about water storage. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) told us that if a sufficient amount of water were made available to the farmers in the interior of British Columbia they could double their acreage. I agree wholeheartedly with that, as I know it is a fact. Therefore we are most anxious that some system of controlling water for irrigation purposes be inaugurated and that the province of British Columbia and the federal authorities get together on this.
We of course are thinking of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. We are not saying for one minute that the huge grants made to the prairie provinces should not be made, but we do note that $7 million of the taxpayers' money will be spent this year for the storage of water for irrigation purposes. Unless I have passed up something in the estimates for which I was looking most earnestly there will not be any money spent in British Columbia. In fact, word has come to the government of British Columbia that the faint tie that existed between our province and the federal Department of Agriculture in connection with P.F.R.A. may be severed completely.
I regret this very much because, as I said, irrigation means so much to us. We have to have controlled water. We have to have water, but I do not imply that there is any scarcity of water. We have ample supplies of water but it must be controlled and made available for agricultural use.
Reference is made in the house quite often to the three western provinces, but I would remind the house that there is another province a little further west. I do not see why it should not be the four western provinces. I understand that a conference of Department of Agriculture officials and ministers from the four western provinces met a few short months ago and agreed unanimously that the provisions of the P.F.R.A. should be expanded and extended to include the four western provinces. I can assure the house that there is no jealousy or desire on the part of the three western provinces to retain P.F.R.A. exclusively for their own benefit. There has been unanimous approval for the extension of the act to British Columbia. I think that that is long overdue.

I just wanted to put myself on record as supporting the measure that has been asked for by the hon. member for Kootenay West and to bring to the attention of the house the need and the urgency for the province of British Columbia being given thorough consideration in the matter of forest conservation, flood and river control and in the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the subject under debate at this time is one of the most important ones ever to come before the house. It is a subject which cannot be ignored because the civilizations of today will thrive or perish, as have those in the past, depending on our foresight and planning in conserving our resources of today for the use of the generations of tomorrow. Lord John Boyd Orr in his book "The White Man's Dilemma" stated as follows:
There are two great issues facing mankind, one political and one material. The political issue is whether the so-called ideological conflict between the group of governments headed by the United States which thinks that communism must be destroyed and the group headed by the U.S.S.R. which thinks that capitalism must be destroyed, will end in a third world war. The material issue is whether the earth can be made to supply sufficient food for its rapidly increasing human population. These two issues are merely different aspects of the question whether the enormous new powers of science will be applied in war, for the destruction of our civilization, or applied in peace, to the development of the vast potential resources of the earth and provision for the physical needs of every member of the human family.
Mr. Speaker, development of potential natural resources is related to the necessity of every nation of the world adopting the terms of this resolution which requests on the national level a policy of conservation for soil, water and forest resources and a plan for land utilization. It was in 1930 that the late President Roosevelt said:
There are so many people ill fed, ill clothed and ill housed that if we set out to supply their needs there would be work for every man and woman willing to work.
The very fact that that same statement can be made with equal validity today is proof of our failure, both nationally and internationally. The fact that we have over
500,000	unemployed in Canada today is proof of the failure of this Liberal government to follow the objective of supplying human needs.
At the conclusion of world war II the nations of the world which had united for war gave the promise of freedom from want for all men in all lands. Is this statement just idle mockery or is it still our objective? Surely we in Canada can show our faith in

our promise by passing unanimously the resolution now under consideration.
The most dynamic argument for conservation and utilization is based on the relationship of world population to world food supplies. We must be aware of the fact that world population is increasing by some 26 million to 32 million a year. The birth rate ranges from that in India of 1 per cent a year which, based on their population, gives them an annual increase of 4 million, to that of the Latin Americas which have a birth rate of 2 per cent per year and Japan with 1 [DOT] 4 per cent whereas Canada and the United States in the period from 1940 to 1949 had a birth rate of 1 [DOT] 4 per cent. The birth rate in those countries is now among the highest in the world.
We must be aware that world population has doubled in the last 100 years. In 1850 the world population was 1,171 million. In 1950 it was 2,400 million. With developments and improvements in health and disease control I think we can expect that the world's population will double within the next 50 or 60 years, within the lifetime of many of the members of this chamber.
On the other side of the ledger, Mr. Speaker, is the shocking fact that there is less food per head of population in the world than there was in 1938. The food supplies kept pace with the increase in population during the last century by the development of nearly 22 per cent of the world's cultivated land, that on the North American continent. This is coupled, of course, with the advance of science related to agriculture. Except for areas where there is really intensified cultivation, we find that production per acre has declined. For example, in Chili in 1911 the production was 10-4 quintals per hectare. In 1939 it had dropped to 7-1. India since 1910 has had an average yield drop of from 10-1 quintals to 8-8 quintals per hectare. Coming closer to home, we find that in my own province of Saskatchewan the average yield in the period from 1905 to 1914 was 18-6 bushels to the acre and for the period 1943 to 1952-a particularly profitable period as far as the weather was concerned-our yield was only 17-9 bushels per acre. In considering this matter of conservation we must be aware of the fact that there are 8,000 million acres under cultivation in the world but there are 12,000 million acres of desert in the world, the greater part of which was man-made. Professor Toynbee points out that 21 civilizations have prospered, and then perished through lack of conservation. We must turn ourselves to thinking in terms of a solution to these problems. In some of the
Conservation
Asiatic countries-I think in India in particular-they are attempting to promote birth control as a means of limiting the population. This project has many difficulties and it is not working too efficiently. I do not think that we for one minute can assume that the greatest asset some of these Asiatic countries have is their high death rate. In this troubled world of today it appears that one means of controlling the world population might be the weapons that we are producing in such a mad furore. In this morning's Globe and Mail I noticed a report that one hydrogen bomb is capable of killing everyone in a 2,800 square mile area. I do not think for one minute that any member of this house would advocate that system; I think there are few in the world who would do so. It looks as though we should perhaps be talking in terms of conserving the human race rather than in terms of conserving the food supplies of the world.
In addition to the matter of food supplies, we must consider the fact that the earth is not made of rubber; it cannot be stretched. Every nation is limited by the number of acres it possesses. As the human beings increase in number, the relative amount of productive earth decreases. If agricultural science were applied to the land already under cultivation, I believe that the food supplies in the world could be doubled. This would include such things as chemical weed and insect control, mechanization, plant development, irrigation and all that the ingenuity of man could devise to improve the productive capacity of the world. But the matter finally resolves itself into one solution. That solution is conservation. As I pointed out, we cannot rely on vast uncultivated acreages in the future. We find that in Canada we have 96-8 million acres of cultivated farm land of which 71-8 million are in the prairie provinces, or 74 per cent of the total. It is estimated by Mr. A. M. Thomson, the director of the lands branch in the province of Saskatchewan, that we cannot increase the cultivated acreage in that province by more than 2 per cent, or somewhere around
200,000	acres.
We think in terms of domestic potential on the one hand, but true perspectives can only be gained in terms of both the international and domestic potential. When we think in terms of the international situation, we usually think of what the other fellow is going to do or has done. Too little do we think about what we are prepared to do ourselves, and can do, before circumstances force us to do something, and perhaps something not of our choosing.
Land, forest and water are indivorcibly married in their relationship. With depletion

Conservation
of the forests, the hydrologic regime is dislocated. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), it is estimated that the forest resources of the province of Quebec are only expected to last another 50 years.


Jean Lesage: Who said that?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Roos said that.


Jean Lesage: That is not what he said. I was there.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: It was pointed out in the Country Guide, and I quote:
Unless the area is saved by rain or snowfall, a dust bowl worse than that of the thirties may develop this spring in the great plains area of the United States. Only a near miracle will prevent the widespread soil blowing on 26 million acres in a ten-state sector which extends from west Texas to the Nebraska panhandle.
This, Mr. Speaker, is in spite of the conservation program of the United States and in spite of the fact, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has pointed out, that the United States is spending up to $2 billion a year for conservation. Coming closer to home, Mr. D. A. Brown, assistant superintendent of the Brandon experimental farm, has stated:
If dry weather and high winds combine next spring in western Manitoba, we could have a worse soil drifting situation than we had in the worst of the thirties.
I should like to relate this problem to my own province where there is at the present time an apparent surplus of wheat. As we go back in history we find that over any extended period in the history of the world there has never been a surplus. The surplus today exists only because of a lack of policy to store the wheat for future use and to dispose of it at that time. The surplus is due to weather conditions and not to any plan or policy devised by the government. In view of the population of the world and food statistics, we must gear ourselves to maximum production. We must utilize every means at our disposal to conserve and utilize our land, water and forest resources effectively. As found at page 872 of Hansard of February 4, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said:
As I have said before, in recent years we have begun to realize that water is not a limitless resource, nor is its development purely a local problem.
In the light of this statement let us look at a proposed undertaking which will enable Canada to play her part in supplying the world with food. It could be said that every drop of water that runs to the sea
(Mr. Johnson (Kindersley).]
without rendering a return to humanity is wasted. Therefore we cannot allow ourselves to waste the opportunity of putting in storage 4 million acre feet of water. I, of course, am referring to the South Saskatchewan river development project. In terms of world population and food supplies I do not think that there is a moment to lose. In my opinion the jockeying and procrastination practised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in delaying this project is nothing short of shocking.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: 
An hon. Member:: And more so.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: All of the features of the South Saskatchewan river development project are related to the topic under debate-irrigation, maintenance of lake levels, urban water supplies, power, river regulation and floods. Until this river is regulated we cannot utilize a large sector of the fertile

land in the Carrot river valley which in the future will be so desperately needed to fulfil our responsibility to the world.
In view of the increase in population in relation to world food supplies, it is imperative that we do all within our power to utilize and conserve. The first step must be a dominion-provincial conference to outline a policy towards which we can all aim. We must plan for the maximum utilization of the resources of Canada and fulfil our commitments to the Atlantic charter to eliminate poverty, with its evils of hunger and disease. Sir John Boyd Orr has stated:
A declaration by one of the great powers that it was prepared to co-operate in such a plan-
That is, to eliminate poverty.
-with other nations, irrespective of their political system, would win for it the sympathy and support of the poverty stricken peoples who form two-thirds of the world's population. They are more interested in the war on want than in treaties and political boundaries or in the relative merits of capitalism and communism.
Let us consider the importance and urgency of this matter. There is not a moment to lose in establishing a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation to enable Canada to play her future role.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I have in mind that the conservation of our natural resources is the privilege and the duty of every good Canadian. I really believe that conservation is one of the most important subjects that we could discuss. I also realize that the problem of bringing about greater conservation of our country's natural resources is a complex one.
At every session since I have had the honour of sitting in this chamber, whether the subject was brought up during study of a government measure or during discussion of a private member's resolution similar to the one we have before us now, the question of soil and water conservation has always provided interesting and instructive debates. Moreover, the subject of conservation has been discussed at length at meetings and conferences in every province across the country. Politicians, professors, lecturers, representatives of industry, farm organizations, forestry associations and many others have expressed their views on the problem.
The majority of those who have debated the subject are of the opinion that in the past we have been too prodigal. Who would dare deny it? For instance, in the early days of the colony the abundance of trees was a drawback to the opening up of the country. The forests were not treated as they should have been. In the years that followed, large 50433-78
Conservation
scale operators added their efforts to those of the colonists and were no more careful than the colonists had been.
Are we treating the forests with the respect they deserve today? While in some sections of the country fine farms have advantageously replaced large tracts of wooded land, in many other sections abusive cuts have created deserts where there could have been an abundance of wood forever.
It has been demonstrated over and over again that we have all been guilty of abuse, industry and government alike, with regard to the exploitation of our forests. Fortunately, during the last three or four decades there has been a better understanding of the necessity for conservation. For instance, today many of the operators harvesting Canada's wood crop are seriously concerned about the future wood supply, and are actively engaged in doing something about it. Many of the leading operators have already achieved sustained yields in their operations. Large amounts of money are being spent every year by industry for road construction, fire prevention, research work of all kinds and investigations into improved methods of operation. These are very vital contributions by industry.
The provinces, with primary responsibility for the welfare of the forests as owners and lessors, have shown a growing sense of responsibility in all branches of forestry as well as in the field of conservation. The federal government has assisted, and does assist on many occasions in a great number of ways, the provincial governments in their efforts toward greater conservation. We find on the statute books of Canada legislation such as the Canada Forestry Act, the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, to mention only a few. Each of these measures has been enacted for the benefit of the provinces who wish to take advantage of them.
There are also other fields in which the federal government has made valuable contributions to forest conservation. I shall mention only the forest research branch which has conducted, and is still conducting, extensive studies in silviculture, logging, protection, inventories, reforestation, utilization, preservation, mechanics and chemistry. In spite of the progress we have made in the field of conservation, I admit there is still much to be done. I repeat that the problem of attaining the utmost in conservation is not an easy one. Problems of this nature are more often solved through compromise and co-operation.
I am of the opinion that one of the important duties that rest with the different governments, industry and the people of this country

Conservation
as a whole is to ascertain the responsibilities and shortcomings, and decide upon the logical steps to be taken to solve the difficulties. There are some important questions which are in the minds of the Canadian people, regarding which no clear-cut answers have been given. For instance, here are some of those questions: How serious is our forest problem? What must we do to conserve this national asset? What are the ideals towards which industry and governments should aim? If there is some danger of losing this very important asset, what must be done to avoid such a disaster? How can we keep every tract of forest land continuously growing and producing trees?
This is not the first time the hon. member for Kootenay West has introduced a resolution to the effect that the government should consider the advisability of calling a federal-provincial conference on conservation with a view to establishing a national policy on soils, forests, water conservation and land use for Canada. In the past, and again today, I have listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member. I do not hesitate to say that he deserves to be congratulated upon being such an ardent lover of the forests and such a strong supporter of conservation.
However, I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the calling of a federal-provincial conference would give this country a national policy covering these subjects. I am not absolutely sure that without some additional studies, and some real co-operation, we could gain much at this time by calling such a conference. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members what was said by the then minister of resources and development during the session of 1952, when he participated in the debate on a similar motion. He had this to say, and I quote from page 835 of Hansard for March 26, 1952:
There is, I believe, pretty wide public acceptance of this general principle that some of the costs of conservation should be borne by the taxpayers generally, but there is room for considerable discussion on two points concerning its application. The first is the extent to which it should be applied, the degree to which the taxpayer should carry the burden of conservation. The second is the determination of what proportion of the burden should be borne by private enterprise, and what should be carried by the taxpayers of the province on the one hand and by the taxpayers of the whole country on the other. In other words, how much of the government contribution to conservation costs should be made by the provincial and municipal governments concerned, and how much by the federal government. Problems such as these are usually best solved by dealing with each case on its own merits, rather than by trying to lay down general principles because the surrounding conditions tend to vary so widely from case to case.

On another occasion, during the 1952-53 session, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), after having cited some extracts from the federal-provincial conference of 1945, added the following:
Well, here I rather shy away from using the expression "national policy" in connection with things of that kind. There are people who think that, when you use the term "national policy" there is some way in which the central authority is going to reach out and try to draw to itself some of the provincial jurisdiction. We do not want to do that. We want to have this country continue under the constitution that was set up, and we do want to co-operate with the provinces.
Later on, referring to the resolution, he
said:
It asks that we consider calling a dominion-provincial conference to bring about a greater degree of collaboration and co-operation. Well, we are quite prepared to consider that. But we do not think it would be apt to produce very great results to do it right away or to do it on any wide scale. Let us continue to demonstrate, by the co-operation that will be taking place, that there are no ulterior motives in doing it, and that it is merely a genuine desire of Canadian citizens, to whatever administration they belong, to help the Canadian people of this generation discharge the responsibility they have to Canadian people of future generations to see that the resources of this country are not depleted, but are maintained, and will be available to be used by them, and will have increased productivity as the size of our population increases.
Well, Mr. Speaker, those words coming from the Prime Minister should make it very clear that this government is anxious to do everything it can in order to further the cause of conservation: and moreover we have proof in the legislation which has been enacted that this government is willing to go a long way to help those who want to help themselves. As a legislative body, I would think we could better discharge our responsibilities by insisting that a special committee of this house be set up to make further studies and investigation of this matter. It is possible that a full and comprehensive report on the subject would supply the real approach to our forest problems.
The job that needs to be done and the opportunity we must seize will require increasing co-operation among the forces of governments, industry and private owners of land. The encouragement of teamwork must be considered a prime requirement of a national policy on conservation, and this can be assured only when all the interested parties agree that the problems are national in scope and that their solution depends on co-operative efforts.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not the first or the only new member in the House of Commons who has had great difficulty in fathoming all the

rules of procedure of the house, all the special customs, all the special days. But it is with a little consternation that I find myself taking part in this debate. You see, last night at 9.45 I was ready for immigration, but at ten o'clock I was told to be ready for conservation. I have searched through my immigration speech, but I cannot find a single paragraph that I can use on conservation.
Be that as it may, at the risk of talking myself out of the house-and I have been warned that this is a common malady:	I
hope I just talk myself out, period-I would not be fair to my constituency of York West if I did not say a few words on this resolution. I do not like to limit my remarks in any debate to the narrow scene of one constituency, and even in' this instance I shall attempt to talk on a wider basis.
I must point out, however, that this resolution is of the utmost importance to the constituency of York West, because this area suffered by far the greatest loss during the recent "Hurricane Hazel". On one street alone, Raymore drive in the township of Etobicoke, 45 people lost their lives, and property damage was terrific. Although the brunt of the loss of life and damage was borne by the township of Etobicoke in the easterly part of York West, severe damage and loss of life occurred in the extreme westerly part of the constituency as well, notably in the Long Branch area. All told, property damage totalled almost $3 million. As Werden Leavens of Bolton, the former chairman of the Humber valley conservation authority, pointed out:
The flood conditions are not new. There have been floods in this valley for at least the last 158 years with increasing frequency and severity. "Hurricane Hazel" was by far the worst but it was only a dramatic and tragic summary of the need for flood control.
Members from the greater Toronto area cannot speak today without mentioning the outright heroism of many of our citizens during and after "Hurricane Hazel". The spirit of co-operation among all agencies that volunteered their services; the efforts of the Red Cross, various church and women's organizations, service clubs, the armed forces, the press, radio and television-and, yes, I believe for the first time in Canada the various political parties helping on an organized basis-directed in round-the-clock work by efficient municipal authorities, resulted in the performance of miracles of rehabilitation.
Now the work of financial adjustment goes on. But-and it is a very large "but"-have we learned any lesson? At the risk of being 50433-78J
Conservation
out of order, speaking from a national viewpoint I would repeat that here was the greatest argument for a complete reappraisal of our civil defence set-up. I have said before in the house that a few air raid sirens are not enough. At least a small permanent force must be maintained in the larger areas of concentrated population. There must be adequate direction and, with all deference to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), I am coming to the conclusion that the national direction and the permanent force staff should be under army control. Even in "Hurricane Hazel" army troops were required, and I believe that in a national emergency the over-all direction must fall to the army.
But if we need national direction of that kind, we also need national direction and assistance of the kind envisaged by this resolution. In my constituency of York West a very urgent brief has already been presented to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) by the Humber valley conservation authority, in which they request the federal government's aid in their plans to prevent further loss of both life and property, and also to ensure adequate soil and forest conservation. As deputy reeve Tonks of York township has said:
Over the last 200 years one of the most dense forest areas in Ontario has been denuded. Today we have flash floods washing away the land and leaving practically no water in some areas. In summer the river is often a filthy and polluted mess. Yet the Humber is the drainage depot for a vast amount of heavy industry building up in an area of major national importance.
I have already indicated to the minister in this house the very great urgency in this matter. No time should be lost; we cannot delay when lives are at stake. I must say I am hoping that the demands in this brief do not get the same treatment as requests for action on the Dundas-Royal York subway, which we have not obtained though the first request for it was made in 1917. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I may be forgiven for inserting that remark into this debate.
I gather that to date federal assistance such as requested, by the Humber valley conservation authority is based on the provisions of section 3, subsection 3b, of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, 1953, which provides that an agreement between the government of Canada and any province for contributions by the federal government in respect of the cost of projects for the construction of dams and other works for the conservation and control of water resources in such province shall also provide that:
The province will carry out a program of reforestation or other ancillary conservation measures


Mr. A. H. Hollingworlh (York Centre):: Conservation
dispelled had he seen the members oi such organizations-for example, the Toronto Avenue Road Lions club, of which I am privileged to be a member-working night and day distributing sandwiches and coffee. Of course the immediate sufferings of the people affected by the hurricane were and are being taken care of by the "Hurricane Hazel" fund. The purpose of the authority's brief is to make sure that this does not happen again.
I would urge upon the government that they take a sympathetic outlook in regard to this matter and participate in the scheme to help make the Humber valley flood project a reality when the authority itself passes on this scheme.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, certain facts have been brought out clearly in the course of this debate. The first, of course, is that the government and the present minister are not prepared to support this resolution. The second is that while Liberal members have spoken in favour of conservation, no Liberal member has committed himself to support this particular resolution.
What is quite evident is that the government and the Liberal party do not believe that we should have any such thing as a national policy on conservation or a national policy regarding soil, forest and water conservation and land use. Apparently in the opinion of the government those are provincial resources, not national. The thing I wonder about is why we have a minister of national resources if we have no national resources for him to administer. Apparently land, soil and water are provincial resources, and one wonders just what are the national resources over which the young and energetic newly appointed minister has control or in which he is interested.
The minister made a great point of wanting to be invited by the provinces to participate in any co-operative effort regarding the conservation measures outlined in this resolution. The excuse the minister gave for taking no action on this resolution is the same old excuse that every politician since confederation has used when he did not want to do anything. Every politician who has been presented with a problem which he did not want to face up to has fallen back on the poor old British North America Act, which leaves certain affairs in the hands of the provinces, and the excuse has been that it would interfere with provincial rights.
Let us assume or take it for granted that these resources are provincial resources. What is to prevent the national minister-the

Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-from taking some initiative and giving some leadership to the provincial authorities in this matter? Why must he sit back and permit some province to take the initiative in getting a conference together or in trying to arrive at some degree of uniformity in this matter of the conservation of these resources? There is a great need for the education of Canadian citizens in the matter of conservation. Why must the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources sit back and wait for some provincial minister or some provincial authority to come forward and take the initiative in instituting such an educational program?
Apparently the government does not believe in anything approximating a uniform policy for all the provinces. Quite evidently what the government wants to do in the matter of conservation is deal with each province separately and make a different agreement with each province, without any effort to see that all the provinces are treated alike or that this matter of conservation is dealt with as a matter of national importance.
Just as soon as a catastrophe strikes, such as the one that struck the Humber valley last fall, and just as soon as damage such as that which has been outlined by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) is sustained, these provinces and municipalities come to the federal government for help; and they usually get it. In all fairness to the government I think we must admit that on this piecemeal basis the government has assisted where catastrophe has struck in the various provinces. But surely a more satisfactory solution of this problem would be an effort to arrive at some form of national policy, some measure-granted that it may have to differ from province to province- with some degree of uniformity which would indicate that the federal government is assuming some responsibility in the matter of conservation of these resources.
Why must we wait until catastrophe has struck before we can get any action from the federal government or any assistance on matters of this kind? It has been estimated, as has already been stated, that "Hurricane Hazel" did over $3 million worth of property damage in the Humber valley last fall. There was loss of life and untold suffering which cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents. I am told that years ago recommendations were made for the building of dams and reservoirs that would have prevented that catastrophe had those recommendations been carried out. Had the federal government and the provincial government been

working together with municipalities where conditions existed such as those prevailing in the Humber valley; had they been cooperating in attempting to prevent such catastrophes instead of just coming in to help after the catastrophe has taken place, hundreds of people living in that valley would have been saved the inconvenience, the loss and suffering which they endured as a result of that hurricane.
I want to support the resolution. After all, if our soil, forests and water are of no concern to this federal government, then what in the world in Canada is of any concern to them? There is little in this country that is of more concern to the people of Canada as a whole than are our soil, forests and water. Certainly they are interests which should concern the federal government and as to which the federal government should no longer hesitate to give some leadership.
It is not necessary to foist a federal policy upon the provinces or upon any municipality. What we want in this matter is the kind of leadership and initiative that a federal government in this country exists to give. When we are given that kind of leadership and initiative there will be no stepping on provincial toes, and no necessity for it. We can have that kind of leadership which only the federal government can give, and we can solve these problems on a co-operative basis to the benefit of the people of Canada in every province and in every municipality.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on why I am supporting this resolution. I am, like the hon. member for York West, supporting it because conservation has become something of tremendous importance to me and to the people I represent in this parliament. During the past month or more subjects of vital concern to the Canadian people have been debated in this house. We have talked about unemployment, education, foreign affairs and immigration. All these things affect the lives of the people we represent in parliament. But it seems to me that today we are talking about something that affects life itself. Conservation is something more than the building of green belts, the replanting of forests or the maintenance of soil values. Those of us who saw "Hurricane Hazel" in action know that, in speaking of conservation, we are also speaking about the preservation of life.
York-Humber, the constituency which I represent, is bounded on the west by the Humber, which is a lovely, winding, slow-moving, docile river. On the night of October 15, it was a seething raging river of terror.
Conservation
A short time ago, as has already been mentioned, the Humber valley conservation authority presented a brief to the government asking for aid in building dams to prevent such flooding and tragic results as were caused by "Hurricane Hazel". I ask the government to give this brief the closest scrutiny and most sympathetic consideration. It is very easy and perhaps natural for legislators to ask why people build their homes in areas threatened by natural disasters. More than 1,400 homes and small businesses were destroyed or damaged by "Hurricane Hazel". There were 85 lives lost, and property damage ran into astronomical figures.
Why do people build their homes in such areas? I suppose economic circumstances make people choose low-lying and therefore low-priced properties. That is one reason. Perhaps another is an instinct that is as old as civilization. Men have always clustered by river banks. In early days transportation and sources of energy were the reasons. Today the reasons are economic and perhaps aesthetic, too. Homes beside river banks are always very attractive. But there certainly are reasons why people build their homes in these low-lying districts. I do not believe you can legislate those reasons away, nor do I think you can scare the people away. But governments can build barriers against dangers.
In my constituency the old story of wolf, wolf was tragically exemplified. It was the oldtimers who lost their lives, not the newcomers. Those who had watched the spring floods pour into their cellars year after year paid no attention to the warnings of danger. They went to bed on the night of October 15 resigned to the chore of bailing out their cellars the next morning, and within minutes they and their homes were swept away. More recent residents were alarmed by the torrential rains and left or were rescued.
Since 1791 there have been 72 floods in the Humber valley area. "Hurricane Hazel" was, of course, the worst and most destructive of them all. As a representative of those who have suffered so tragically from these floods, I cannot let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to the people who were battered by "Hurricane Hazel", both those who were affected by it personally and those who helped others. They were magnificent. It seems to me that in my lifetime all our energies have been directed toward the development of weapons of destruction. Here is our chance to do something toward construction. Here is our opportunity to protect life and conserve our natural resources in the form of water, soil, forests and human beings.	.

Conservation
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
The thought comes to me that the mover of the resolution is a bit of an optimist, because if the government were to do what he suggests it would be the first time it has been able to formulate a clear policy on anything. I would also point out that conservation means saving, and to expect such a policy on the part of the government is a little too much because by their actions they have indicated that they are completely inexperienced in saving.
The minister has stated that such questions are matters of provincial rights. We hear a great deal about provincial rights in this house, but there is very little discussion of human rights. Conservation deals with the rights of human beings. However, notwithstanding the minister's diffidence about considering the resolution, there are certain matters that I feel should be drawn to his attention and the attention of the house and the government. If the government fail to take proper steps with respect to conservation I foresee that the flood waters arising from their lack of action will flush them from office.
A number of conservation authorities have been set up in the province of Ontario with the co-operation of the provincial government. In some instances conservation measures have been taken in time, and in other instances steps were not taken soon enough. It may be that some of the lessons that have been learned will help the government cast aside some of their diffidence and take a step forward rather than acting like the little girl who never went out because she was never asked, and would not go out by herself.
In Canada we are blessed with a great abundance of natural resources. We have been entrusted with their care. Perhaps we have violated that trust, and have been too indecisive in taking conservation measures to protect our natural resources and the heritage which is ours. This indecision brings the same result involved in all indecision, some form or other of disaster, floods in many parts of the country and the loss of natural forest resources in other parts.
Perhaps the most recent illustration was the flood, already mentioned, on the 15th and 16th of October last year that followed "Hurricane Hazel", although in this instance a conservation authority had been

in operation for some years. There were more floods occasioned by "Hurricane Hazel" than those in the Humber valley. Our hearts and sympathy went out to the staunch Dutch immigrants of the Bradford marsh area who were also affected. There was no indecision in their case so far as relief was concerned. There was no question whether agriculture was a provincial or a federal matter. Notwithstanding that agriculture concerns both the federal and provincial governments, the province of Ontario said that in this case it was a provincial matter and proceeded to help those people. They did not argue about the rights of the two governments.
The most extensive flooding, of course, was in the Humber valley. We always watch events in the Humber valley rather carefully because the river starts in Peel county as a pleasant little stream, but in a distance of 58 miles and a drop of 1,200 feet it can become quite a torrent of water. The minister has received representations from the Humber valley conservation authority. The hon. member for York Centre referred to certain parts of the brief submitted by the authority, although he did not quote it directly.
There have been additional submissions to the minister by the Humber valley conservation authority. I feel it is most significant that these submissions have been made as a result of his inquiry, so I trust the fact that the minister has requested further submissions indicates he is genuinely and seriously casting aside the provincial rights aspect of this particular question.


Jean Lesage: I believe, Mr. Speaker, I should make a correction at this point. These submissions are made under an existing act, the water conservation assistance act. In such a case there is no question of provincial priority.
Mr. Pallet!: I am certainly pleased to hear the minister say that.


Jean Lesage: The request has been made by the province in the case of the Humber valley.


Mr. Pallell:: The minister referred to the provincial rights aspect of the resolution. As I read section 7 of the resources and development act which sets up the minister's department, it says:
The minister may formulate plans for public works and improvements, housing, community development, research and the conservation and development of the resources of Canada_


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this act has been repealed and has been replaced by an act which was adopted by this house in December of 1953, creating the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


John Cameron Pallett: Is the minister suggesting that this section does not apply under the new act?


Jean Lesage: Not in those words.


John Cameron Pallett: Is the minister suggesting he does not have the same authority under the new act?


Jean Lesage: The Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act is still in force, and it was under that act that I received the submission from the Ontario government for assistance to the Humber valley conservation authority. Only yesterday I received the additional information that I requested from the delegation that came to my office on January 31, and the officers of my department are presently studying the technical details of the submission.


John Cameron Pallett: Yes; that is dealing with the Humber valley authority representation. I am referring now to the original submission that the matter of conservation was within provincial jurisdiction only.


Jean Lesage: That is not what I said. I said that natural resources were primarily the responsibility of the provinces, and I could ask the hon. member if he does not agree with what I said.


John Cameron Pallett: The minister could ask that, but since he did not I do not believe I should be obliged to answer the question.


Jean Lesage: No, you are afraid.


John Cameron Pallett: I return now to a consideration of the resolution before the house. Since the minister has indicated that he will perhaps support the representations of the Humber valley conservation authority, after receiving advice from his officials and if he believes they should be supported, I may relate to him some of the incidents that occurred on the night of the flood which will perhaps encourage him in the human approach to this question. Yesterday in the house we had a great oration on the human element that comes into the consideration of everything this government does. To assist the minister in that consideration I may give him some of the human elements involved in "Hurricane Hazel" which occurred on the night of October 15-16.
I would say it was about eleven o'clock at night when I received the first indication there was something amiss. I had a telephone call from a constituent of mine who said, "John, we are taking people out of the homes on First street in boats; what do we do?" I thought, that is rather interesting. We had a big flood in Winnipeg, so there must be some organization set up to look after these things. I recalled the many newspaper articles about civil defence, so I looked in the
Conservation
telephone book to see if there was a listing under "civil defence". 1 did not see anything under that heading.
By that time our local firemen were on the job. The Lions Club were out doing their bit. Traffic was being directed on this rainy night by a boy scout, 16 years of age. The girl guides were out. The Kiwanis Club was distributing food. Blankets were needed and the problem was how to get them. I called a friend of mine in the army and he said, "John, you cannot get them out; you have to get the council to get them out." I said, "That is all right." I was given a number and I called our deputy reeve. She called the colonel in charge, and out came the blankets and beds. I wish to say that, although the red tape was fairly extensive, the army responded magnificently and should be given full credit for the work they did.
There was one humorous incident which would be appreciated by those who have been in the services. At the Port Credit high school where the blankets, beds, and mattresses were being unloaded there was a sergeant supervising the job and a brigadier carrying the blankets.


An hon. Member:: A democratic army.
Mr. Pallet!: Yes, a democratic army. I cannot pass over this incident without mentioning the fine work of the Canadian Red Cross that evening. However, there was no over-all organization. Each of these individual service clubs-and I may have forgotten to mention some of them-did its bit. As the hon. member for York West has said, this storm certainly highlighted the lack of any civil defence organization in this country.
The minister may feel that before he expends this great sum of money he will want a few more humanisms. There is nothing so desolate as a man whose home, whether it be a house or trailer, has been washed away from underneath him. If the minister acts quickly in connection with this conservation authority he may prevent such occurrences. In addition, I believe the brief shows the actual cost of these dams will be very small to the country as a whole. In other words they will create benefits themselves by increasing the potential water supply for certain areas, creating parks and reservoirs of water to assure a continual flow at certain times of the year. As a result, this is not a charitable gift by any government but rather a project which, while not entirely self-liquidating, will in part liquidate itself over the years.
The total cost of these dams would be $14,747,000, a very small outlay for such great benefits. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in the house because

Conservation
as the brief points out, in addition to the many other benefits this project will create employment. The construction of these dams would create work to the extent of 2,507,000 man hours, and this would be spread over a period of about two and a half years. That is the kind of work that should be encouraged, because it would take care of the seasonal unemployment to which the government refers.
At the time of the hurricane we saw individual feats of bravery which may never be repeated in the history of Canada. I suggest to the government that to recognize feats of that kind it should take from its storehouse, or wherever it may have been placed, the Canada medal which, I believe, was to cover occasions of this kind. Thus far the government has not seen fit to make any awards- and someone interjects that perhaps the reason is that there are not enough Liberal heroes. I do not know whether we differentiated at the time of the hurricane between our political friends and those who were not in that category.


Mr. Philpott:: Liberals are heroes, but they are not working for medals.


John Cameron Pallett: That is right; they prefer money. I am leaving this suggestion with the house as something which might be given favourable consideration.
Then tribute should be paid to the wonderful coverage given by the press at the time of the hurricane. I take special pride because a constituent of mine, Mr. Ivan Lavery, of the Toronto Daily Star, a newspaper known to most hon. members, was awarded one of the highest awards for his work that night, which was carried out at great personal risk and danger.
And so I point out there are human elements which might help the minister to determine that the purse strings should be loosened to assist the Humber valley conservation authority, and for that matter any other conservation authority that would approach him with a similar scheme.
The Etobicoke river is much smaller than the Humber, but at its lower end near the lake it causes damage and used to cause heavy damage to the town of Brampton. At that time-and I stand to be corrected on this- it is my understanding the federal government refused any assistance for the diversion of that stream because, as they pointed out, it was not within their scope. Some might have said, "well, we will have to let it go because the federal government will not talk to us. They will not invite us to discuss the matter, so we will do nothing about it." But the prov-

ince of Ontario and the town of Brampton combined their efforts to bring about that diversion. Believe me, some of the Liberals in the legislature were rubbing their hands in glee because it seemed to them the province was spending a large sum of money, without any tangible results. "Hurricane Hazel," however, showed the foresight of the then premier of Ontario, Colonel T. L. Kennedy, because the town of Brampton was saved from that hurricane.
That is the kind of foresight the minister must show if he is going to encourage steps toward national conservation. He must not try to shilly-shally behind the facade of dominion-provincial rights. I believe agriculture in Canada has pretty well overcome that handicap, and I see no reason why other ministers should not follow a similar course.
For the reasons I have indicated, I support the resolution.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, it is only very occasionally that hon. members have the opportunity to discuss matters of really fundamental importance to the whole population. We spend a great deal of our time discussing relations with each other and a lesser time discussing our relations with people in other national groups, but very seldom do we discuss our relationship with our environment. I think it would be a good idea if sometimes human beings were to forget their exalted role as something just slightly less than the angels, and regard ourselves as an extremely voracious species of animal that is rapidly eating itself out of house and home.
We have built, on the resources of this globe, various social and political institutions, and we have developed various philosophies; but the whole edifice will fall around our ears unless we deal with this question of abuses in our life on this planet. This requires the adoption of policies that will see to it that those resources provide the most fruitful returns for the enrichment of human life.
I am not saying that we have not improved considerably in our outlook in this regard within recent years. I can remember very well 40 years ago on the Pacific coast when each summer we had a haze of smoke all over the lower mainland because of the vast quantity of timber that was being burned, due to human greed and human stupidity. Now that is almost a thing of the past. We have been able to curb some of the more flagrant examples of waste in our various industries in British Columbia.
It was about 11 years ago that I appeared as a witness before the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Sloan which dealt with

the forest products industry in British Columbia. It was on that occasion that I first heard promulgated the idea of a forest management licence, to which reference has been made this afternoon. There was a very interesting incident at that time which I think throws some light on the problem of the conservation of our natural resources.
I may say that the idea was advanced by the spokesman of one of the largest lumber corporations on the British Columbia coast. When he advanced the idea, commission counsel questioned him very closely about it, and asked whether his company really believed they would have financial resources sufficient to fulfil their side of the bargain, which was to provide a continuing supply of new timber in return for cutting rights on existing stands of mature timber. This was in connection with the proposal of a forest management licence.
I shall always remember what the representative of that large lumber corporation said. His reply was, "Oh, I think so-that is, so long as conditions stay the way they are today. But of course if times get tough we might feel it would pay us better to get a pair of scissors and clip coupons." That gave me an inkling of the sense of public responsibility large lumber corporations in British Columbia have toward the development of our natural resources.
Much has been said about the development of the forest management licence scheme. This was brought about as a result of the deliberations of that royal commission; and the royal commission was established because of conditions which had become evident for many years past. The chief forester in the province was the late E. C. Manning who, some may recall, was killed in the aeroplane crash in which the late Hon. Norman McL. Rogers met his death. Mr. Manning year after year had been warning the provincial legislature in Victoria that time was running out in the forests of British Columbia; that there was serious and dangerous overcutting in all species; that no care was being taken to reforest the logged-off lands, and that our backlog of logged-off and totally barren land was increasing at the rate of some 25,000 to
35,000	acres a year in the coast forest alone.
I should say this, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the importance of the forest stands not merely for the people of British Columbia, not merely for the people of Canada, but for the people of the whole world. The forests of British Columbia constitute over half the total timber resources of Canada. The coast forests constitute the last remaining stand of virgin soft timber in the world, and as a consequence I say they are the responsibility
Conservation
and concern not just of the people of British Columbia, not even just of the people of Canada, but of the people of the whole world.
The forest management licence idea was based on a very sound principle. It was based on the principle that forest products are a continuing resource, if properly harvested and farmed; but the forest management licence system of British Columbia did not take into account a very important factor in the situation, namely the enormous backlog of logged-off timber lands in the most valuable timber growing areas of Canada. At the present time some million and a half totally barren acres of what was formerly the richest timber land in the world exist on the coast of British Columbia. In the 10 years since forest management licensing was started there has been an ominous silence from the licensees under that act. We get very little in the way of reports of the actual areas that have been reforested by the licensees, very little in the way of reports of the manner in which logging operations are now being conducted. There are, I am aware, some companies, some licensees, that have adopted modern silvicultural methods; there are others which definitely have not.
I say the principles are sound, but they have not taken into account the factor of this enormous backlog that can now be overcome only by a vast capital expenditure. In that connection I should like to refer the house to the view of the late Professor George Drummond of the University of British Columbia, an economist who had specialized in forest economics. Ten years ago he was asked to prepare a brief on forest economics for a royal commission. Professor Drummond had this to say. It was his considered conclusion that it was impossible to expect private enterprise to undertake the task of growing new crops of trees. He said: Except in times of exceptional economic activity, with very high prices and with exceptionally low taxation, no large company could be expected to undertake this enormous economic and financial responsibility.
Still less could they be expected to undertake the job of reforesting areas which had been logged off in past years and are now completely barren. At the time of the royal commission in 1944 and 1945 I pointed this out to the royal commissioners and suggested that here was a field into which the provinces would probably have to step. At that time I suggested also that it might now have already gone beyond the point where it was within the financial scope of the province, that it was in fact a national problem and one in which Canada as a whole should be taking a hand.

Conservation
No one knows at the present time just what the situation is with regard to that enormously important natural resource, the softwood stands on the coast of British Columbia. There are conflicting reports both as to the inventory and as to the volume and age of the immature stands of timber; but I will say this, Mr. Speaker. Past experience has proven beyond a doubt that the time is coming when the public interest will demand a major public capital investment in those stands which will be beyond the resources of the province of British Columbia and I think should be considered beyond their competence.
In fact, sir, I would go so far as to say I think it is a very dubious proposition that a major natural resource of that sort, and major natural resources, for instance, such as the oil of Alberta, the iron ores of Ontario, of Quebec and of Newfoundland should be considered solely the responsibility and solely the property of the people who dwell in the various provinces. They are matters that concern all the people of Canada. We are coming now to the point, Mr. Speaker, where we are beginning to consider the global control of many of these vital natural resources.
I suggest to you, sir, that if Canada is going to play its part in the discussions that must take place with regard to the allocation of the remaining resources in the world, then we must have a unified, integrated national policy. It will not do for our Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to go to an international conference and say, "Well, it is unfortunate, but I must call up the premier of British Columbia and put in a telephone call to the premier of Alberta and another one to the premier of Quebec to see whether we can agree with this proposition that you put up"; because that is the state we will be in if we do not establish some sort of national policy with regard to these resources.
The minister has suggested that the resolution we are debating attempts to cover too much territory, to provide too heavy an agenda for the proposed dominion-provincial conference. I presume that might be true if one considered it a conference that was going to go on for a short time and disband. But my concept of it is that it would be a conference that would at least set up a continuing body to study and co-ordinate policies in this field.
In that regard I would point out the experience of our friends to the south, who after countless and repeated experiments in piecemeal control, this state doing it this way, that state doing it that way, each state
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .1
demanding some help from the federal government but not prepared to co-ordinate its policies, set up a national conservation commission in the United States not to determine and dictate policies to the states but to meet with the state representatives to devise a unified, integrated program to which the federal government could contribute. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have as much capacity as our United States friends to deal with this agenda. Surely we have an equal capacity to meet with our fellow Canadians in every province to evolve some sort of a unified national policy.
I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, that it is political considerations that prevent the government from taking the essential step at this time. I would conclude, sir, by reminding the minister that no doubt constitutionally and legally he is perfectly right, but he is rather like the man in the jingle who was right as he stepped along, but he is just as dead as if he had been wrong.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: When I came into the house this afternoon it was not my intention to speak on this resolution, but I usually come into the house prepared to speak on anything that I happen to feel like speaking on. So many references have been made to what agriculture does and what others might do that I thought I might take a little time to indicate some of the things agriculture does.
Before proceeding to do that I should like to read the resolution again. The resolution says:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
In the first place the resolution assumes that there is not a national policy now. I should like to suggest that if there is one on these different matters, then the necessity for calling a conference of this kind is obviously nonexistent.
I can quite understand a member of the house who sits with either of the groups on the other side at the far end having that opinion, but I can scarcely understand my hon. friends immediately opposite having such an opinion. I have not taken the trouble to go back over the history of these matters to find out which party in power from time to time established the different policies which we have, but I do know that we have had policies on all these matters ever since I came into the house.


Colin Cameron: Could the minister tell me where I can find the last statement on a national policy in connection with forestry?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member can find it by understanding what is being done in the different departments over the years. I shall come to that in a minute. He probably will not need to look further after I have finished my speech.
I repeat that ever since I have been in this house one of my chief duties has been to learn just what my hon. friend has asked me to state to him, and then keep right on doing it. Any minister who comes into this house representative of any party would find exactly the same situation in relation to most of the important problems that concern the people of this country. For anyone to suggest that there has never been a national policy in relation to forestry is to misunderstand two things. In the first place, as the minister said a few moments ago, with the exception of three provinces natural resources have since confederation been under the control of the provincial governments. They were under the control of the federal government for a considerable period of time in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it is only since 1931 that they have been under the control of those provincial governments.
Forests, lands, waters and all other matters associated with natural resources were retained when the prairie provinces were set up, and were therefore handled from Ottawa. But the natural resources of all the other provinces right from the time they came into confederation were under the control of the provincial governments. Those provinces had control of their own resources and they were very much concerned that they should have control of them.
The provinces were responsible for their development, and they carried on that development. To say there has been no national policy is to state what is not a fact. There has always been a national policy in relation to resources. The government of Canada-it does not make any difference whether it was a government elected by the supporters of the party who sit directly opposite or a government made up of members who are seated behind us in this particular session-has always had a national policy. Members who have come here from the different provinces of Canada have always insisted on there being a national policy.
That national policy relates to the matters which were raised this afternoon by one hon. member sitting directly opposite-I think it was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness)-when he called attention to the
Conservation
fact that winds do not stop at boundary lines, that many rivers do not stop at boundary lines, that erosion whether by wind or water is something that a province cannot control completely. In addition, there are insects which fly over the country and destroy forests. It has always been recognized that there was no way of stopping them at boundaries. Therefore there have been understandings over a long term of years as to how such questions could be dealt with by means of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
Reference was made to that fact a few moments ago by the minister, when he said the Department of Agriculture did certain things in connection with these problems, and his department did certain things in relation to them. So we have a policy-I am not going into the details of it-which has been set up for a long period of years, of trying to control insects which destroy forests, trying to control the different diseases that attack trees in order to prevent the destruction of our forests. This work has been carried on with complete co-operation between the provinces and the federal government through a definite national policy established for that purpose.
Just within the last half hour we have had it shown very clearly that in 1953 the minister who was administering the department of resources before the minister who spoke this afternoon brought in a bill which provided the leadership which my hon. friends have been asking for this afternoon, in connection with the control of streams and water within the provinces.
The Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act gave leadership in this way. Ever since I came to this house, and long before I came here-I suppose ever since confederation-Ontario has been coming to the government here and saying they were having difficulties on the Thames river, on the Humber river or on other rivers within this province. We were asked to help in providing controls of some kind or another, either to build dams, to widen the stream or deepen the bed of the river in order to carry away the water.
As was said this afternoon, right down to the time this government came into office there was no definite plan as to how this work could or should be done. It was simply a matter of coming to Ottawa when they had a problem, trying to get whatever money they could in order to deal with the particular problem, and then going home and proceeding with the work.
The Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act which was placed on the statute books in 1953 definitely states that whenever

Conservation
a province has a problem of that kind the federal government will provide up to 37J per cent of the cost. It is presumed that the municipalities concerned will pay 25 per cent, leaving the province and the federal government to divide the remaining 75 per cent of the cost. That is a policy, that is a plan recognizing the fact that the province has a responsibility and will at least control the development which is going to take place in order to bring about the results they desire. They know they can come here and if they put up a reasonable proposition to the government they can get that much assistance in connection with the undertaking.
I repeat that there was no plan here in connection with matters of that kind until this government came into power. Previous governments dealt with the question, piecemeal if you like; they dealt with each problem as the problem arose. For many years there was a prolem down in the maritime provinces which was causing a great deal of trouble. This had to do with the control of water; with the control of the ocean, which is not so easy. Account had to be taken of the fact that down there the tides rise to levels found in very few parts of the world, if any. When those waters rose to their heights they came in over the land.
It is quite proper to say that before there was a federal government in Canada at all there were people who found ways of dealing with that problem. They did not live on this continent. Some of them lived over in France. For one period they took care of it. For another period it was under British control, and the British took care of it. You might say that some of these works were probably done in the aftermath of war in order to give employment to men who otherwise would have been out of employment, just as we are talking about similar undertakings now in this country. Nevertheless, whatever the reason was, they found ways and means of putting in dikes and aboiteaux down along the coast and prevented that water from coming in. Then after those dikes and aboiteaux had served their purpose for probably 100 years; after they wore thin, and the waves of the ocean dug underneath the dikes and they fell into the ocean, somebody started talking about it.
Under the constitution of this country it was a provincial responsibility. Nobody questions that fact. Everyone agrees that it was a provincial responsibility. No government had dealt with it before. I have said here on the floor of the house before, and I am going to say it again now, that it took this government 13 years to convince many people that it was more than a provincial question.

So after 13 years of discussion we now have a system which was set up by the passing of an act in Nova Scotia, the passing of an act in New Brunswick, the passing of an act in Prince Edward Island, and the passing of an act here. Under these pieces of legislation we have expended millions of dollars in carrying out a plan which, when it is completed, will as completely control the ocean coming in over these lands as did the old dikes and aboiteaux that were put there by the French and the British in years gone by. I recite this history in order to say again that this government has not been without plans in these matters.
In a few moments I shall deal with some of the questions that were raised by western members, but before doing that I again want to call attention to the fact that the very first words used in the active part of the resolution are "with a view to the establishment of a national policy on soil". That is the important question in so far as agriculture in this country is concerned, though I must say that in most countries of the world forestry is considered to be a part of agriculture. There is a reason why it has not been so considered in this country. The reason is that we have eleven different governments and the natural resources of this country have been under the provincial governments. Where you have one government, and in some places where you even have a federated form of government, forestry is considered to be a matter of planting and harvesting just like all other agriculture. So trees are planted.
I was never so surprised at anything as I was on the first trip I made up the east side of the Alps. I found that there were more sawmills on the east side of the Alps than there are in Canada. When people started to talk to me about coming out to this country to engage in lumbering I had to say to them, "You must get into your minds an entirely different picture from the one you have here". There is a little sawmill in practically every town and in places that are not towns at all up over the sides of the mountains. I made inquiries as to how they could go on lumbering in that area to the extent they were, and I was told that every time you cut a tree in that section of the continent of Europe, you must plant one. Whoever cuts it is responsible for putting another tree in its place. There is only so much of it that can be cut. It goes on growing over the years. There is a constant supply of timber there to keep their little mills going, and so they have a supply of lumber.
This country has not followed that practice. One of the statements made this afternoon was that up at the source of the Humber

river, or up at the sources of some of the other rivers in Ontario all the timber was cut off and, as a result, in the spring the snow melts more rapidly than it did before, water rushes down in these streams and causes floods and erosion of the soil; and suggestions have been made as to what ought to be done about it. I do not know of any place which is as young as the province of Ontario where I have come across as many places where they are planting trees and doing reforestation, whether it be over in Scotland where they have a great deal of it, or whether it be on the continent of Europe where they have considerable of it.
I must give credit to the province of Ontario. I do not know whether it was started under a Liberal government or a Tory government, but all up through this province, for example as you go from here to Prescott, you see plantings of evergreen trees. Everybody knows to what party Mr. Howard Ferguson belonged. You can see the place from which they get their trees, which is marked "The Howard Ferguson nurseries", just off the side of the road. All through that country you find trees being planted. Down in my own section of Ontario where I was born and raised the sharp corners of the three-cornered sections of land are planted in timber. I have been surprised at the way in which it has grown. It is all very well to say to us that we should have been doing something about it. What I am saying to you is that the provinces in this country are doing something about it.
In so far as the plantations out west are concerned, they have been under the control of this government simply because of what I said at the beginning, namely that down until 1931 we were responsible for natural resources. So it is that we have a forestry farm at Indian Head. We have another forestry farm up at Saskatoon. Trees have been given away for years. I went to Regina in 1904 and they were being given away then. They are still being given away. Any farmer can go to these plantations, get trees, take them home and plant them. Reforestation has been carried on in that way over a considerable period of years. So I repeat that policies have been in existence with regard to reforestation, and policies have been in existence with regard to the fighting of insects and the fighting of parasites. As to those policies there is no disagreement as between
Conservation
the provinces and ourselves. We meet together from time to time and discuss them.
There was no necessity for our meeting all the provinces of Canada when we were considering building dikes and aboiteaux in the maritime provinces. We met the three provinces down there and considered the matter. There was no necessity for meeting all the provinces in Canada when we were dealing with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act out in western Canada. The provinces out there were met.
My friend the hon. member for Calgary North stated this afternoon that the Department of Agriculture does something, and asked why the other minister does not also do something. Fortunately for the other minister, I was not always here. I was premier of Saskatchewan before I came here. Whatever other people might think about it, the first meeting with regard to P.F.R.A. was held in the city of Saskatoon. It was called by myself as premier of Saskatchewan. It was attended by John Bracken, who at one time led the party on the opposition side of the house here; he was there representing Manitoba. It was attended by Mr. Reid, who at that time was premier of Alberta. We discussed this whole question which had developed as a result of the fact that the provinces now had the natural resources and were responsible in connection with them.
We said, they have simply handed over to us a responsibility which all other provinces admittedly always had. They have handed it over to us after having taken from us the earnings from these lands that had been disposed of, the earnings from disposal of the timber resources, and the earnings from the mining rights. They said here, take it, and go ahead and run it in the best way you can. The proposition was first mentioned by the first government of Mr. King. It was finally carried out by the Bennett government, and we had the resources.
We said at this conference that in view of the fact that these lands and the resources of one kind or another had been disposed of, the federal government should do something more about it before turning them over piecemeal to us. So we proposed a plan similar to the one that was inaugurated in 1935 by the government of Mr. Bennett to deal with what we call P.F.R.A. All I wish to say at this moment is that that did not originate in Ottawa. It originated out on the prairies where the problems were, owing to the fact

Conservation
that the resources had been turned over to the provinces. So we said that, having deprived us of the earnings prior to the time they were turned over, the federal government ought to do something more about it.
I came down here to do something about it. That is practically the reason I am here. I have been here for 20 years, and I remember Mr. Bennett sitting right across from me when we were discussing this question in 1936 and 1937. He said to me, "How long do you think it is going to take to do that job?" The act as we found it only provided for five years at $1 million a year. I said that it was going to take at least 20 years. The 20 years will be up next year, and the job is not completed yet. But what I am saying to hon. members at the moment is that it was not the federal government that started these activities. It was the three provincial governments on the prairies. They asked to have the job done.
It has been said by some hon. members that we should be talking about all four western provinces and not three. I would say that maybe we ought to be talking about all of the three before we talk about the fourth. P.F.R.A. does not cover all of the three prairie provinces. About one-sixth of what is under P.F.R.A. is in Manitoba, about two-sixths are in Alberta and the other three-sixths are in Saskatchewan. In all the remainder of those three provinces not under P.F.R.A. the provincial governments are responsible for all drainage, irrigation and water conservation that is done there, in the same way that provincial governments are in other provinces across Canada.
It has been said that we ought to take in British Columbia. Some suggestion has been made that there is no provision in the estimates this year for taking care of any work going on there. I have here on my desk a statement of expenditure on the Lillooet project in British Columbia. The construction and exploration cost was $1,164,000. I arranged that project on one occasion when I was in British Columbia. On the representations made by the people of the area and the province we agreed to spend $100,000 on the project, and it was going to have to be finished by somebody else. Well, it cost us $1,164,000, and it cost somebody else a lot, too.
All I am suggesting is that the federal government has to be careful when it makes arrangements on matters of that kind. There must be plans, yes; there must be policies, yes. There is not a province in Canada that

can have more earnings from its natural resources than British Columbia, and a very small part of those earnings will be from farm lands. There is not another province that has possibilities of greater earnings; and under the constitution the province has always been responsible for the development and reaps the returns. The provinces just over the mountains have not always been responsible, but they are now.
We had said to the former government of the province of British Columbia that we did not think we should go along with this matter much further without some very definite arrangements being made in connection with financing. Then the new government came into office and they asked us the same kind of question. When we said there was no outlined plan upon which we could proceed the statement made to us-and it is in the correspondence which will be tabled here -was to the effect that the government of British Columbia could not afford to do this job, that if they did it in one or two cases they would have to do it over the whole province. I must say that I had to say to them that if we did it in one or two cases we would have to do it over the whole province. So we thought some very definite plans should be made before there was any further expenditure of money on projects of that kind.
What I started out to say was that I have here the figures of the expenditures under a definite plan in connection with this matter. Under that definite plan we have spent $89 million in the four western provinces in order to do the very kind of work that it is presumed should be done under the resolution. Therefore I say to hon. members that we are not opposing the doing of that kind of work. We all agree with everything that has been said in the house this afternoon with regard to the necessity of having it done. We simply say that under our constitution there are ways of doing it properly and there are ways of trying to do it improperly and only getting into difficulties.
Therefore we suggest that if we stay with the constitution as it is and go on and do the job as we have been doing it, eventually it will be done properly. But if we attempt to go off on some tangent and do something else simply because of a resolution being moved in the house we will have great difficulties.


Mr. Knowles:: Six o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says it is six o'clock. I wish I had time to deal with soil surveys, but if hon. members will agree I should like to have published in Hansard two tables. The first one deals with the headquarters of the organization for soil control and surveys and then gives the provincial headquarters. I would ask hon. members to permit that table to be put on Hansard, and also the second table which shows the acreage surveyed in 1953, together with a paragraph of explanation with each. If hon. members agree I should be very pleased to have it go on the record so it will be there tomorrow for everyone to use.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What is the source of the statistics?


James Garfield Gardiner: The source is the Department of Agriculture and the statistics branch here.


Donald MacInnis: Fine.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it can be put on the record, it will save taking any more time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The information is as follows:
Soil survey work in Canada is conducted by the experimental farms service in co-operation with the provinces, roughly on the basis of costs being shared equally. In addition to co-operating in field survey activities the experimental farms service acts as a co-ordinating agency. Headquarters for soil survey work by the experimental farms is with the field husbandry division on the central farm, Ottawa; provincial headquarters are as follows:
Newfoundland, dominion experimental station, St. John's; Prince Edward Island, dominion experimental station, Charlottetown; Nova Scotia, agricultural college, Truro; New Brunswick, university of N.B., Fredericton; Quebec, agricultural college, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Macdonald college, Que.; Ontario, Ontario agricultural college, Guelph; Manitoba, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Saskatchewan, university of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon; Alberta, university of Alberta, Edmonton; British Columbia, university of B.C., Vancouver, provincial department of agriculture, Kelowna.
The basic program for soil surveys in Canada is a systematic reconnaissance survey of all the present and potential agricultural areas. However, special surveys are often conducted in areas where there is immediate need for soils information for specific purposes. The scope of soil surveys in 1953 is indicated by the fact that in addition to the carrying on of the systematic reconnaissance soil surveys in nearly all the provinces, special soil surveys included examination of the soils in the Fort Chimo district of northern Quebec, inspection of lands in various parts of Newfoundland for the royal commission on agriculture and the provincial department of agriculture, mapping and classification of soils in proposed irrigation projects in
Business of the House
western Canada and exploratory traverses into several parts of our northern forest belt.
The number of acres surveyed in 1953 and the total area covered to the end of 1953 by systematic reconnaissance methods is shown in the following table;
Acres surveyed in 1953	Acres mapped
by systematic
		Recon-	reconnaissance
Detailed	naissance	surveys toProvince	surveys	surveys	end of 1953Newfoundland	i 	-	470,000Prince Edward	Island 2 	.. 	-	1,398,000Nova Scotia ..	.. 	1,024,000	7,313,000New Brunswick 70	250,000	7,232,000Quebec 	,. 1,010	937,000	11,483,000Ontario 3 	. 1,700	1,290,000	18,505,000Manitoba 	. 320	173,000	17,819,000Saskatchewan	. 4,050	105,000	67,823,000Alberta 3 	. 231,000	1,276,000	46,561,000British	Columbia ...	. 2,000	419,000	9,537,000240,150	5,474,000	188,141,000 *41Soil inspections carried out at	51 fishing outposts.	-No field surveys carried out in	1953."Preliminary	surveys	made of	about 3,700,000acres in these	provinces	in 1953.	
*'In addition about 60 million acres have been examined in a preliminary manner.
I shall conclude by saying that we think we have a plan. We think we have been operating a plan right along. I now move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.



SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 28    DEBATE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I may have permission to revert to motions I should like to move:
That in relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, and on the amendment thereto, moved February 15, the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended for Thursday, February 17, 1955.
He said: The purpose of the motion will be obvious. It is so that we may continue tomorrow the debate we had yesterday on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. It has been agreed, sir, that we shall try to have a vote tomorrow night not later than nine o'clock, and of course earlier if it meets the wishes of hon. members. This will permit the airing of other grievances

Business of the House when the vote on the amendment is disposed oi, and we would hope we could complete that before ten o'clock or at a slightly later hour if it should prove necessary.


Mr. Low:: Before the house adjourns, could the house leader say whether it will be possible to have a debate on external affairs this week?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to arrange for a specific date. We hope to have it settled, though, by Friday night for some time next week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 17, 1955