1955-06-06

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake) presented the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Thirteenth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members that an official note was delivered to the United States government on June 1 on the subject of the United States tariff on a product of the pulp and paper industry which is known as hardboard.
Last week the Canadian ambassador in Washington made various official calls to express the concern felt here about a bill now before congress which would, increase the duties on hardboard.
The text of the Canadian government's note is as follows:
The Canadian government wishes to draw to the attention of the United States government the serious concern which is felt about a proposal to increase substantially the United States duty on imported hardboard. This proposal is understood to have been included by the Senate finance committee as a rider in a bill HR 5559, "to make permanent the existing privilege of free importation of gifts from members of the armed forces on duty abroad." The United States hardboard industry has recently been investigated by the United States tariff commission and the resulting report is not such as to support increased tariff protection. It is hoped, therefore, that strong efforts will be made, within the United States government, to defeat this present measure which would have damaging effects upon the trade of other countries, including Canada, and damaging repercussions upon the attitudes of other countries in their trade relations with the United States.
It will be recalled that the Canadian government made representations to the United States government in a note of July 19, 1954, on the previous occasion when this measure on hardboard was before congress. The Canadian government drew attention in that note to the fact that tariff 50433-280
paragraph 1413, under which hardboard is imported into the United States, was negotiated with Canada and is bound by trade agreement.
To make brief reference to the events which have ensued, on August 9, 1954, the Senate finance committee directed the United States tariff commission to make an investigation of the hardboard industry and of the import classification of hardboard. In its report the tariff commission dealt only with the technical question of the classification of hardboard and it found hardboard to be a distinctive article of commerce of sufficient importance to justify specific enumeration thereof in the tariff schedules. In the majority findings, it was made clear that the tariff commission had not been asked to investigate the rate of duty appropriate to hardboard nor did it make any recommendations regarding the tariff rates themselves. The minority findings went further to say that "no information which they obtained in the course of the commission's investigation, indicates a need for revising those rates at this time". In the statement of findings of the commission it was said "The domestic hardboard industry thus far has not invoked the escape clause procedure or otherwise claimed to be seriously injured or to be threatened with serious injury as a consequence of increased imports of hardboard".
In summary, while some support was given to the idea of a technical reclassification of the item of hardboard, there was no support whatsoever for increased duties, nor does a careful study of the report show any justification for increased duties.
Representatives of the Canadian industry affected went to Washington to appear at the hearings which were arranged by the tariff commission. The commission made exhaustive studies and took evidence representing different points of view. When the tariff commission report was published, the Canadian government felt this matter to have been disposed of after a fair and exhaustive study.
Hardboard manufacturers have evidently been expanding in the United States and doing well. According to the report, of 11 domestic plants producing hardboard in 1954, two of them commenced operation in 1954, two in 1953, one in 1952 and one in 1951. According to the figures of the tariff commission, almost half of the rated capacity of the industry in 1954 has been constructed since 1947. The tariff commission report indicated in addition that four or five hardboard mills were being planned at the time, with one actually under construction, and another to be started shortly.
With production and consumption rapidly increasing in the United States, and with imports still accounting for a very small percentage of domestic production, it is difficult to see any need for increased tariff protection. If this new rider, which has been attached to the bill, "to make permanent the existing privilege of free importation of gifts from members of the armed forces on duty abroad", were to become law, it would be quite contradictory to the spirit and intentions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade which governs trade relations between Canada and the United States.
The Canadian government has on several occasions made clear the concern which is felt about the widening scope of escape clause procedures in the United States. Moreover, in this case, action is being proposed which is entirely outside the procedures which have been established

U.S. Tariff on Hardboard


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce should give every member of the house cause for concern on more grounds than those which relate alone to the subject matter of his statement. He has told us that if this new proposal should become law it would be quite contradictory to the general provisions of GATT. He has told us further that the measure is unjustified under the circumstances and represents a widening scope in the exercise of the escape clauses which are provided. This is not the first time that the government has felt impelled to present statements to the government of the United States with regard to other direct breaches of the principle underlying GATT or borderline cases which might conceivably come to constitute breaches.
I think I should mention that on an earlier occasion during the present session the Minister of Trade and Commerce thought it was appropriate to read immediately to the house a statement which had been sent to the government of the United States with respect to certain proposed restrictions on the movement of oil from Canada. I think all hon. members will recall the extreme difficulty we encountered in finding out subsequently what the answer of the United States government had been. In fact, to this day we have not received detailed information as to the position taken by the government of the United States in response to that proposal. We did have, after repeated requests, a very general statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but we do not know yet what the answer of the United States was.
On other occasions the attention of the house has been drawn to breaches of GATT or acts that came close to breaches of the principles underlying GATT. In view of that situation, I hope that on this occasion it may also be indicated to the government of the United States that it would be helpful to the members of parliament of this country, to whom this statement has been read, to have a statement in reply which would inform us as to the response extended to the statement now presented to the government of the United States. If the government has as great concern as is indicated today about the tendency in the United States to extend the scope of the escape clauses, then I would think we have come very close to the time when it may be necessary for the government to propose a general review of the effect of the escape clauses, because Canada certainly should not be in the position of having interferences raised against our


normal trade with the United States within, the general principles of GATT and at the same time leave ourselves in the position where we are extending not only the opportunities that are afforded in principle but also the opportunities that are afforded by letter.
By all means let us hope that we may continue friendly relations with the United States; but at a time when we are interlocking our defence arrangements so closely with the United States and, in doing so, of necessity bringing our economies more closely together in certain respects, I do believe that on this occasion we should receive a written statement in reply, which the members of the house may have before them, as an answer to the communication which has just been read to us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to enter into a debate on this subject, Mr. Speaker, but I would say that in the case of the restriction on the importation of oil into the United States we received the best possible answer from the United States when that country eliminated the offending clause from its tariff bill. I think the best possible answer we could get to this brief would be the elimination of the amendment to the bill in question before the bill receives the approval of the President.


George Alexander Drew: Again, without making a debate of it, I would remind the minister that the amending section which was proposed in regard to the limitation of the movement of oil from Canada to the United States was only removed in view of the fact they had made voluntary arrangements which they found satisfactory to achieve the same purpose.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Does this statement not show the difficulty that the President of the United States has in working for freer trade with a protective government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not competent to answer that question, but I will say that the important fact is revealed that protests from Canada are taken seriously in the United States, and that in most cases the correction is made to legislation which we represent as being detrimental to the trade position of Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question? If we cannot get satisfaction with respect to these tariff matters could we not retaliate very effectively by imposing an export tax on newsprint and nickel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What we could do is one thing, and what we think it is policy to do is another. I doubt if we will retaliate.



TRANSPORT ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: for leave to introduce Bill No. 449, to amend the Transport Act.


Mr. Green:: Could we have an explanation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of this bill is to implement the report of the royal commission on agreed charges.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 438, for the relief of Marie Merilda Longval Roy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	439,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Edouard Thibodeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 440, for the relief of Rose Bowman Fox.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 441, for the relief of Marguerite Gladys	Letitia	Mathers	Grimsdale.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 442, for the relief of Jennie Switz-man Rashcovsky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	443,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Ryerson Stewart.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 444, for the relief of Hilda Emmalin Christensen Taylor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	445,	for	the	relief	of	Glendon
Joseph Lynes.-Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Pearson:: 1 and 2.
Travel
Mr. M. Boisvert	$104.00
Mr. M. J. Coldwell	 74.00
Mr. J. M. James	 44.00
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell	 134.00
Mr. R. Thomas	 71.00
Mr. M. J. Coldwell	 68.00
Mr. A. Gauthier	 53.00
Mr. A. R. Lusby	 140.00
Mr. D. R. Michener	 117.00
Dr. J. L. MacDougall	 193.00
Rev. A. B. Patterson	 185.00
Mr. T. H. Ross	 61.00
50433-280J
Questions
Bill No. 446, for the relief of Kenneth Rae Story.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 447, for the relief of Joseph Marcel Plourde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 448, for the relief of Mayo Arthur Perrin Harrigan.-Mr. Hunter.



QUESTIONS


PRIVATE RADIO STATIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have applications been made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by any of the private radio stations in any part of Canada to permit the holding of a political conference or a dialogue between two or more persons on political subjects?
2.	If so, which private stations have made such applications and what was the date and the nature of the decision in each case?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Individual applications by private stations on such matters do not arise since it is a question of generally applied rules, which are currently the subject of consideration by the corporation in consultation with private stations and political parties.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY-OBSERVERS

Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Who were the Canadian observers at the general assembly of the United Nations in 1953 and 1954?
2.	What was the amount of expenses incurred by this country for each of the Canadian observers?
3.	In what proceedings have they taken part and what are the names of those who delivered speeches thereat?
4.	To whom was the report of their observations transmitted?
5.	Where may copies thereof be obtained?
No. Of
Hotel	Subsistence ($7 per day)	days Present	Total Expenses$519.00	$396.00	52	$1,019.00337.00	302.00	36	713.00397.00	403.00	39	844.00119.00	83.00	10	336.00371.00	305.00	38	747.0076.CO	35.00	5	179.00439.00	321.00	44	813.00429.00	347.00	42	916.00336.00	185.00	24	638.00169.00	123.00	17	485.00399.00	287.00	40	871.00489.00	364.00	50	914.00
Questions
3.	The only observers associated with Canadian delegations to sessions of the general assembly have been members of parliament. They are nominated by their party leaders and are appointed by the government to give members of all parties represented in the House of Commons opportunities to obtain first-hand information of the problems and activities of the United Nations. Customarily the government invites nomination of four Liberal members as observers, two attending each half of the session of the assembly; two Progressive Conservative members, one attending each half of the session; one C.C.F. member to attend half the session and one Social Credit member to attend the other half. Observers are associated with the Canadian delegation and attend delegation meetings but unlike representatives and alternate representatives they have no responsibility for formulating or expressing Canadian policy. They are free to attend all committee meetings and plenary sessions, but are not permitted by the rules of procedure to participate in debates. Many observers become interested in specific subjects during the session and devote all their time to following proceedings in one committee. Others prefer to obtain a more general view by moving from committee to committee. Their programs are left to their own discretion.
4.	Parliamentary observers are not required to submit reports of their observations to the government and the delegation does not report on their activities. Whether observers present reports to their respective party leaders is a matter for decision by those leaders.
5.	See answer to No. 4 above.



FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What is the net cost of operations of the fisheries prices support board since its coming into effect in 1947?
2.	What is the total cost of fish purchased by the board as from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1955 in each of the following provinces: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, prairie provinces?
3.	What are the total proceeds from sales of fish purchased by the board in each of the above named provinces as from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1955?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Net cost of operations of the fisheries prices support board since its coming into effect in 1947: $4,141,575.37 to May 31, 1955.
2.	The aost of fish purchased, excluding freight, storage, handling, and other charges, is: Newfoundland, $383,601.30; Nova Scotia, $298,222.69; New Brunswick, $529,083.87; Quebec, $164,263.62; prairie provinces, $474,498.03.
3.	Total proceeds from sales of fish purchased by the board in Newfoundland, $35605.76; Nova Scotia, $18,658.11; New Brunswick, $32,665.49; Quebec, $4,856.03; prairie provinces, $55,550.23.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom:: What amount was paid by the federal government in family allowances to residents of Nova Scotia during the year 1954?


Mr. Robertson:: 1954-55-$17,159,246.



WILLIAM MOTT, NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C.   TELEGRAM

Mr. Green:: 1.	Did the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General on or about May 5, 1955, wire a certain William Mott of New Westminster, British Columbia, concerning a change in name of a postal station then known as Whalley?
2.	If so, was this telegram sent at public expense?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.	^



PAYMENTS TO APPLE GROWERS, ETC.

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	How much has the federal government paid by provinces, in each fiscal or calendar year, in the apple tree removal program?
2.	How much has the federal government paid by provinces in each fiscal or calendar year, under the authority of the Agricultural Prices Support Act or otherwise, since 1945, to apple growers?
3.	How much has the federal government paid out by provinces, in each fiscal or calendar year since the start of these payments, for feed grain freight assistance?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	The following gives the amount of apple tree removal payments by the federal government to Nova Scotia growers by fiscal year:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1942- 43	$ 156,050
1943-	44	
107,3701944-	45	
30,5741945-	46	
33,7661946-	47	
135,2001948-49	
1,500,0001951-52	
200,0002.	The following payments have been made by the federal government either as a net cost under the Agricultural Prices Support Act or by special grant of parliament to the

apple growers of Nova Scotia and British Columbia since the 1945 crop year.
British
Crop Year	Nova Scotia Columbia
1945	$	58,407	-1946	
757,358	$	73,0841947	
3,119,274	-1948	
1,487,882	44,6511949	
1,582,979	2,416,4151950	
300,000	1,200,0001954	
601,838	-3.	Amount of Money Paid Out by the Federal Government for Freight Assistance by Calendar Years Since the Start of the Payments
Calendar Year 1941 (October-December)
Province
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island British Columbia ....
Amount Paid in Freight Assistance . . .	$	764,302.50
. ..	720,721.68
. ..	111,480.00
.. .	158,638.50
.. .	19,294.60
. . .	135,096.06

Questions
Calendar Year 1945
Province
Amount Paid in Freight Assistance
Ontario	 $ 6,191,145.00
Quebec	 6,117,941.48
New Brunswick	 1,118,745.00
Nova Scotia	 1,267,593.30
Prince Edward Island	 372,444.00
British Columbia	 1,758,328.51

Calendar Year 1946
Ontario	 $ 6,738,853.50
Quebec	 7,025,075.96
New Brunswick	 1,270,837.50
Nova Scotia	 1,497,382.20
Prince Edward Island	 455,009.80
British Columbia	 2,017,065.28

Calendar Year 1947
Ontario	 $ 7,446,339.00
Quebec	 7,314,739.32
New Brunswick	 1,292,107.50
Nova Scotia	 1,395,095.40
Prince Edward Island		409,442.40
British Columbia	 2,182,894.98
Calendar Year 1942
Ontario	 $ 3,319,231.50
Quebec	 3,851,573.60
New Brunswick	 691,965.00
Nova Scotia	 909,662.40
Prince Edward Island	 222,531.60
British Columbia	 996,217.08

Calendar Year 1943
Ontario	 $ 6,518,142.00
Quebec	 5,523,277.30
New Brunswick	 1,011,517.50
Nova Scotia	 1,331,397.00
Prince Edward Island	 425,055.20
British Columbia	 1,432,696.28

Calendar Year 1948
Ontario	 $ 6,445,528.15
Quebec	 7,055,225.10
New Brunswick	 1,136,582.45
Nova Scotia	 1,433,364.70
Prince Edward Island		449,588.75
British Columbia	 1,806,918.91

Calendar Year 1949
Ontario	 $ 5,419,655.16
Quebec	 6,591,132.47
New Brunswick	 844,150.40
Nova Scotia	 1,302,420.40
Prince Edward Island		355,257.30
Newfoundland	 232,808.94
British Columbia	 1,503,139.89

Calendar Year 1944
Ontario	 $ 5,862,208.50
Quebec	 5,926,703.44
New Brunswick	 954,495.00
Nova Scotia	 1,346,414.40
Prince Edward Island		366,720.40
British Columbia	 1,722,957.08

Calendar Year 1950
Ontario	 $ 4,785,376.52
Quebec	 6,845,156.36
New Brunswick	 896,798.10
Nova Scotia	 1,420,497.20
Prince Edward Island		352,869.20
Newfoundland	 316,703.18
British Columbia	 1,296,189.28



$15,913,588.84 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Questions
Amount of Money Paid Out by the Federal Government for Freight Assistance by Calendar Years Since the Start of the Payments-Concluded Calendar Year 1951
Amount Paid in
Province	Freight Assistance
Ontario	 $ 4,374,335.27
Quebec	 7,191,326.67
New Brunswick	 981,344.00
Nova Scotia	 1,494,235.60
Prince Edward Island	 348,339.30
Newfoundland	 283,609.35
British Columbia	 1,567,955.83
[Stage Direction]
Calendar Year 1952
Ontario	 $ 5,151,750.93
Quebec	 8,407,426.77
New Brunswick	 1,156,150.40
Nova Scotia	 1,625,982.60
Prince Edward Island	 409,976.50
Newfoundland	 378,087.61
British Columbia	 1,724,466.33
[Stage Direction]
Calendar Year 1953
Ontario	 $ 4,693,236.87
Quebec	 7,395,317.95
New Brunswick	 1,014,703.40
Nova Scotia	 1,581,954.15
Prince Edward Island	 367,892.30
Newfoundland	 327,129.71
British Columbia	 2,226,071.39
[Stage Direction]
Calendar Year 1954
Ontario	 $ 4,785,028.47
Quebec	   8,288,560.83
New Brunswick	 1,060,192.20
Nova Scotia	 1,714,144.20
Prince Edward Island	 235,050.90
Newfoundland	 394,723.44
British Columbia	 2,577,020.18
[Stage Direction]
Calendar Year 1955
Ontario	 $	927,694.37
Quebec	 1,770,137.71
New Brunswick	 234,142.40
Nova Scotia	 416,516.10
Prince Edward Island	 73,123.40
Newfoundland	 64,036.68
British Columbia	 275,430.35


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 

MOTION FOR PAPERS


Howard Charles Green: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams passing between the Department of Public Works and the New Westminster city council and the New Westminster board of trade, during the last six months, concerning the removal of the office of the Department of Public Works from the city of New Westminster to the city of Vancouver.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. Siuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act to increase the salaries of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada and the superior and county courts of the provinces; to increase the number of judges for the British Columbia court of appeal and the supreme court each by one; to provide for a judge for the territorial court of
[Mr. Gardiner.)

the Northwest Territories; and to provide certain adjustments as to pensions of judges and widows of judges.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the impression that has been left by a statement of a senior officer of the Royal Canadian Air Force last Thursday, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making a statement on behalf of the government in relation to the extraordinary statement that was contained in that speech last Thursday, that war is inevitable and that the western powers are anxious and willing that such an event should take place?
I believe that it would be highly desirable that the Prime Minister give a statement in relation to this, in view of the various comments that have been made by different officers associated with the general staff, and also comments that have appeared across Canada since that speech was made.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion of the matter this morning with the Minister of National Defence. He has prepared a statement which I have seen, and with which I am in full agreement. Perhaps he might now make it to the house.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a number of questions that were addressed to me on Friday last, with regard to the speech to which the Leader of the Opposition has just referred, I might say that during the course of the week end I had an opportunity to inquire fully into the circumstances of the speech of Air Vice Marshal Plant, to which reference has been made.
It would appear, as hon. members will have noted from subsequent press comment, that Air Vice Marshal Plant's address was really cast in an entertaining and humorous vein and was so interpreted by almost all those who heard him speak.
Some of the remarks as quoted in the press the air vice marshal admits having made, but states that in the first reports they
Inquiries of the Ministry were removed from their context. Nevertheless, in any event they were in my opinion highly inappropriate as coming from a service officer. Notwithstanding the reportedly facetious nature of the air vice marshal's remarks, and in order to remove any doubts regarding the continuation of tri-service cooperation on policy matters, I have decided to accept the recommendation of the chief of the air staff that Air Vice Marshal Plant relinquish his present position as air member for technical services where, as well as being an adviser to the chief of the air staff, his duties include dealing with and serving on tri-service committees. He will take over the position of air officer commanding air materiel command of the Royal Canadian Air Force, a position which is not concerned with tri-service policy matters but which will utilize to the full his unquestioned ability and experience in the technical field. He will take over this command from Air Vice Marshal H. B. Godwin, who had already been selected for another appointment.
I am also preparing for issue to the chiefs of staff of the three services instructions governing future public statements by members of the armed forces.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the statement which has just been read by the Minister of National Defence does not deal with the points that I placed before the Prime Minister. There was nothing either entertaining or humorous in the statement that war is inevitable and that the western powers are anxious and willing that this should come. In no statement now made by the Minister of National Defence is there any reference to these statements. I can understand the problem raised by one member of the tripartite service committee making a statement which would be inconsistent with what was put forward by other members of the committee; but I believe that what is much more serious is the public impression conveyed by the senior officer on the planning staff in regard to the subject which is perhaps uppermost in people's minds, namely, the likelihood or unlikelihood of war. I think we must have regard to the fact that a statement was made that would be taken very seriously outside of Canada. I would ask the Prime Minister to deal with those statements.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the whole question has been dealt with in a very effective manner, and in a manner that will prevent the recurrence of any statements of that kind being made in any kind of a speech, whether it be intended to be serious or facetious. I think it is quite inappropriate for a high ranking officer to make, even in a speech
4440	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry not intended to be taken seriously, statements that could, if removed from their context, give the impression that was given by the first reports of the speech that was made last week.
I think it is indiscreet, even when one is attempting to speak as we sometimes do at the press gallery dinner, to make statements of that kind when they can be reported and when they can cause the kind of anxiety that has been caused by the report of this speech. I am sure it is appreciated by most officers that that is most unfortunate and the action being taken by the Minister of National Defence will be effective in bringing about a situation where there will be more care taken about the possible effects of what might be by some-and what I gather from subsequent reports was by most of those who were there-felt to have been a very amusing, witty speech. Some of the language in which it was reported would not be the language that a high-ranking military officer would use in making statements that were intended to be taken seriously.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence a supplementary question? Will the minister make a statement on government defence policy in the near future so that members of this house and senior officers of his department may be aware of the changes which must inevitably have been introduced to policy through the emergence of the nuclear bomb, which have been introduced since the last statement on government policy?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, I may say that I expect that my estimates will be before the house very shortly and I shall be glad then to make a statement.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister make a statement in respect to what action the federal government contemplates in connection with the two Saskatchewan government representations that the flooded areas in Saskatchewan be declared a national emergency?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to quarrel with the exact terms of the hon. member's question, but there had never been


representations made that an area be declared an emergency. As a matter of fact, when matters occur which constitute a disaster of such proportions that this government recommend to parliament that assistance be extended to those who suffer from the disaster, it is not a declaration of a national emergency; it is a declaration of a catastrophe of such magnitude that it is felt that all the taxpayers of Canada would feel it was proper for them to make some contribution to relieving the situation. That matter is still under consideration, and when a decision has been arrived at the proper recommendation will be made to parliament.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Would the Prime Minister, in view of the emergency, give us some idea as to when the government will make such a decision?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government is considering the situation, and the government at this time does not regard a decision as urgent. The government is informed that the things that should be done at once are being done under the aegis of the provincial government, and what we will have to decide will be whether or not the situation requires a recommendation to parliament that funds-not the funds of the government, but funds of the whole body of the taxpayers of Canada- should be used to help alleviate the situation which has arisen. Of course, for those who are the sufferers it is serious. Even when there is only one sufferer from a disaster of importance, it is serious for him; but I read a very interesting forecast in the Globe and Mail this morning of what is apt to be the general situation throughout the province, and I hope-as I am sure the hon. member also hopes-that the forecast will be realized in the province at large.


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with the answer he has just now given to the hon. member for Moose Mountain? Does his answer apply with equal force to farmers in Manitoba who have suffered flood damage?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I read in press reports this morning that the Minister of Agriculture had stated that he was gathering information for the purpose of submitting a request to the federal government, but that request has not yet been submitted. Of course, the government's endeavour will be to treat Canadian citizens anywhere in the

manner that was adopted when the government recommended that assistance be extended in connection with the Fraser river flood or the Red river flood.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: On Friday last the Minister of Trade and Commerce undertook to give the house a statement concerning the plan for the construction of a nuclear power reactor by the dominion government in conjunction with Ontario hydro and Canadian General Electric Company. Could he give that information today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in looking into this matter I find that I made a comprehensive statement on that subject on Thursday, March 24, to be found at pages 2329 and 2330 of Hansard. I may say that the announcement by the province of Ontario had to do with the location of the project. As the site is being purchased by the province and as the building and conventional part of the installation as well as the operation of the power plant is the responsibility of the province, it is considered that the province should take the lead in determining where the project will be located. The location suggested by the province has been found suitable by this government and the atomic plant will be built in the vicinity of the Des Joachims power installation on the Ottawa river.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister tell the house the amount of money that will be expended by the dominion on that plant, and also whether there are any other nuclear power stations under contemplation at the moment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall answer the last question first. This is a demonstration power station in which all power authorities throughout Canada, both public and private, have been asked to give their co-operation, and they are doing so as to design and structural detail. Participation in this project will be the government's contribution to the power industry, as far as the introduction of nuclear power is concerned. As I recall the arrangement, the government is doing the nuclear part of the installation only, aided by some financial contribution from the contractor. I believe our contribution lies between $7 million and $8 million, spread over a period.


Howard Charles Green: About half the total cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About that.
6. 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT



INCREASE IN AMOUNT THAT MAY BE EXPENDED ON MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for a moment in regard to the amendments that are proposed in the bill now before the house on third reading. One of the things I wanted to suggest on this occasion has been answered in part by the Prime Minister in his remarks of the last few minutes. The other day during the course of the discussion on P.F.R.A. in committee, as I recollect it, the Minister of Agriculture stated that diking and drainage of the areas in question did not come within the ambit of the P.F.R.A. as it now stands.
I feel that the Prime Minister's statement today will be regarded with considerable disappointment throughout the prairie provinces particularly in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I hope I did not misinterpret the viewpoint that he expressed, but inherent in his words was the indication that postponement of acceptance of national responsibility is now the attitude of the government. P.F.R.A., in any amendment at the present time, having regard to the serious conditions prevalent on the prairies, should include a power to meet the draining and diking that will be necessary in large areas in the provinces. The Prime Minister mentioned an article in this morning's Globe and Mail presenting a rather hopeful appearance as to the future in these areas, but I would point out once more that the best opinion in the prairie provinces is to the effect that 8,000 farmers, who operate one million and a half acres of land, will be unable to seed them this year. A thousand others farming two million acres can only partially sow the acreage in question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would the hon. member permit me to say that I did not intend to give the impression that those whose lands were now under water would not remain seriously affected. The article to which I referred was one treating with the over-all situation in the province and suggesting that the conditions which had brought about the disaster where the land is still under water might have a beneficial effect for the economy of the whole province which would compensate for the losses. I was careful to add that that did not remedy the situation of the individual who suffered damage.
4442	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister mentioned that each individual might consider the situation a disaster with relation to himself, but left the impression that in general, taking the areas in question affected, the whole area might not come within the purview of a disaster area. I had hoped that by this time a decision would have been made on this question and that parliament would have been given an opportunity to place in the hands of P.F.R.A. the responsibility to do the necessary ditching and diking to meet the situation as it is today and also the situation that would arise in the event of a recurrence in future years. Such a recurrence is certainly within the realm of possibility, because of the effects of years of drought and also of mechanization, both of which conditions have contributed to the problem of erosion with the consequent dangers that have become apparent this year. Under this measure I wanted to suggest that there be evolved a federal plan, in co-operation with the province, for draining and diking; for certainly, according to recent estimates that have been made, the immediate drainage needs will cost $4,643,000, something that cannot and should not be met by the province but rather should be met in a joint contribution with the federal authority assuming at least 75 per cent of the amount.
If I might, I should like to put forward one further suggestion. As a further means to meet that problem there should be made available direct federal relief to these farmers who have suffered permanent damage, in order to tide them over until fall. The situation is not an individual one in which the individual regards himself as being in the throes of a disaster but is in fact one of the most serious things that has happened to the western economy in several years.
Having said that, I wish to repeat once more our objection to increasing the authority of the minister from $10,000 to $15,000 on contracts under this act. We feel that, while the act should be extended to meet an increasing field of responsibility, nonetheless the power of the minister, under the circumstances to which reference was made the other day, should not be increased and that no harm or delay will result from the need of having contracts over $10,000 being accepted by the governor in council.
I want to make one other reference because, when speaking in the house I have always aimed to place facts before the house, and the facts are unchallengeable as far as I am concerned. However, the other day in the course of my remarks I made a statement that Mr. Austin Dewar was public relations


officer of P.F.R.A. and the Minister of Agriculture stated that such was not a fact. No one has brought this matter to my attention, but I checked afterwards and I found out that I had been in error in that regard. How I came to be in error will be shown by the following facts. Reports appeared in the various western papers of a meeting of a group of Liberals in Prince Albert on March 7, presided over by Dr. Partridge, the retiring or retired president of the Saskatchewan Liberal association which had brought representatives from northern Saskatchewan, a number of whom had been former members of the legislature. I am not going to go into what they dealt with on that occasion because it is no part of our discussion in the house. But during that discussion one reference was made to the fact that P.F.R.A. had become, in effect, the personal not puppet but instrument of the Minister of Agriculture. Then this appears in the record, and from what I now read it will become apparent where my error came in. The article referred to the Gardiner machine and then said this:
The delegates went on record as favouring an immediate explanation by the leader himself-
That is Mr. McDonald.
-as to the events which led to the appointment of Sam Carr-
That is the secretary.
-and the subsequent difficulties and pressure that both had been under to re-introduce Glen Bruce into the office. It was also emphasized that Glen Bruce would not be acceptable as provincial secretary,-
That is where the mistake came in on my part.
-nor would Austin Dewar, a former public relations "expert" under the Gardiner machine-
That is where my mistake came in. I read that with reference to an earlier reference that P.F.R.A. was part of the Gardiner machine. Then the article went on to say this:
-or Dick Bird, the previous secretary to Bruce, and a former campaign manager for Gardiner.
When I stated the other day-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to interrupt on a matter of personal privilege? I would judge that my hon. friend is going to say that his previous statement with regard to Mr. Dewar is incorrect.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I am going to say.


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to say to my hon. friend that the statement with regard to everyone in the report he is reading from is incorrect. I am not sure any of those remarks were ever made at the meeting.

There is not any such man that I know of as Dick Bird, for example. There are many other incorrect statements in the report. There is no truth in them at all.


John George Diefenbaker: There is another Bird; apparently it is not Dick Bird but some other Bird that occupied a similar position.
I am just reading from this article and explaining that when I stated that Austin Dewar was a public relations official of P.F.R.A., that statement was based on a misapprehension arising from the article in question and I want to clear that up.


James Garfield Gardiner: In that article it does not even say what my hon. friend is saying he did not say.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend has apparently studied this article. I am not reading the whole thing. If my hon. friend wants to have it read, I will certainly see that it is read. But the reference was made in the manner I have indicated in that article and in the other articles to which I made reference. As far as Austin Dewar is concerned, his position apparently is that of one of the officials of P.F.R.A., but he is not in the nature of a public relations official and I want to clear that point up and to clear it up without any doubt. I do not want to leave with regard to anyone any impression that is not in accordance with the facts. But nonetheless, he occupies a position of responsibility and one to which I am going to make further reference. The rest of the criticism I made the other day is still as effective as it was, regardless of whether he occupied a position such as that or the .general position with the general functions to which the right hon. gentleman made reference.


James Garfield Gardiner: Now that my hon. friend has started to clear the matter up, I think we should have it cleared up completely. The statement made by my hon. friend was that this man had been appointed a public relations official. The statement now read says that at one time he was a public relations expert to my machine.


John George Diefenbaker: No; it does not.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not say that he is now.


John George Diefenbaker: No. It says he was a former public relations expert under the Gardiner machine.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; "former". It does not say anything about what my hon. friend is talking about, namely what he is now.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that is a play on words. Let us have none of that play on words. That indicates that he had the position-


James Garfield Gardiner: That does not justify the statement made the other day by the member for Prince Albert at all in any sense.


John George Diefenbaker: It justifies every word of that statement. But I did want to clarify the fact that he had not the position with P.F.R.A. and that reading "machine" with "P.F.R.A." in the earlier context it is understandable why I felt that the machine and P.F.R.A. were synonymous. Having said that,
I turn once more to the bill in question. Without repeating previous arguments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
That Bill No. 5 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have cower to delete subsection 2 of section 1 of the said bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know if the discussion has terminated on this motion, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Prince Albert that the amending bill has two clauses, the first one of which says that subsection 2 of section 9 of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, chapter 214, is repealed and another subsection substituted therefor. The second clause says that sections 10 and 11 of the said act are repealed. We are dealing there with the repeal of sections. According to the amendment the only clause which will be at all new if the bill is enacted is to be deleted in committee of the whole. Is this not an expanded negative? Could the hon. member not obtain the same objective by simply voting against the bill?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be wrong, and I do not want to argue the point at the moment. I am merely submitting these observations to the hon. member. I will listen to other speeches and in the meantime will examine the point further, but if the hon. member wants to say anything in reply to what I have said I would be very glad to hear him.


John George Diefenbaker: There are two portions to the bill before the house. The first clause has to do with increasing the jurisdiction of the minister from $10,000 to $15,000 so far as expenditures are concerned. The second clause has to do with the repeal of sections 10 and 11 of the act. In other words, the bill before the house has two sections. The first one provides for an increase in power and the second provides for the repeal of

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act certain sections. As far as we are concerned if we were to vote against third reading of the bill as a whole we would be voting also against the repeal of sections 10 and 11, to which we have no objection.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Speaker-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Is the hon. gentleman going to speak on the point of order?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member for Prince Albert would agree that the first part of clause 1 of the bill should also be deleted. If subsection 2 is to be deleted then perhaps they should have the power to delete clause 1 of the bill. Clause 1 only enacts subsection 2 of section 9.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it could be the whole section.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It would be the whole clause 1 of the bill if instructions were to be given to the committee of the whole.


John George Diefenbaker: What the Prime Minister says is entirely correct. It would be with instructions that they have power to delete clause 1 of the said bill in its entirety.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent the amendment could be amended to read as just indicated by the Prime Minister and agreed to by the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman
agrees with me and I agree with him. Section 2 deals with another matter.


Mr. Speaker:: So the amendment will then read:
. . . that they have power to delete clause 1 of the said bill.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker,
I rise at this time to discuss the phase of the bill having to do with the increase from $10,000 to $15,000 in the amount that may be spent under ministerial authority. I do so because I want to take up a specific matter having to do with government policy, which it appears to me has been undergoing changes by ministerial authority. The matter concerns the expenditure of moneys under the act for the payment of P.F.R.A. engineers where their services are requested by the provinces. Apparently it was the policy of the government until recently that, when a province requested that a survey be made to determine whether a certain project to be undertaken under agreement with the federal government was economical and a proper project, the expenses of the engineers making the survey were paid by the federal government.

Somewhere along the line a change has come about, and now the minister has informed the provinces that if they ask for P.F.R.A. engineers to make a survey prior to determining whether or not a certain project is suitable they will have to pay the cost of the engineers. From two points of view this is a serious matter so far as my province is concerned. In the first instance, as I have already mentioned on other occasions, the province of Manitoba has received a very small percentage of the total expenditures under P.F.R.A. and proportionately also a small percentage of the total expenditures made outside of the act by agreement under special votes of the house.
In addition, we now find that if the government of Manitoba, for example, wishes to investigate the possibility of building control dams in the Riding mountain area or the Duck mountain watershed area, something which has been under discussion for a considerable length of time, or if the province of Manitoba proceeds to investigate the feasibility of lowering lake levels in lakes such as lake Dauphin, lake Manitoba and even lake Winnipeg in order to prevent flooding by water backing up from the lakes on the farm lands near these lakes, it may find it will be saddled with the total cost of making such surveys whereas in the past it was able to call upon the federal government to assist at least to the extent of lending their P.F.R.A. engineers to do the job.
I raise the matter at this time because in my opinion the change of policy is a very unfortunate one. The province of Manitoba has experienced three years of floods one after the other. The other day the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) raised the question in the house. Other members have raised it from time to time.
I have raised it on numerous occasions. The province of Manitoba is attempting to find some way to alleviate the condition. It is attempting to find methods by which the flood waters may be controlled, particularly so in the Riding mountain and Duck mountain watershed areas, with which the minister is very familiar.
Now, if they are faced with the proposition that if they request that a survey be made by P.F.R.A. engineers they will have to pay the full cost of such survey, and then after a survey has been made the federal government decides it is not in the public interest or it is not the proper time to proceed with such a project or for any other reason may decide to postpone indefinitely plans for the project, the result is nothing but a net loss to the province to the extent of the cost of

such a survey. I would hope that the government would see fit to return to a policy which was in operation until recently. 1 have no information as to the exact time at which this policy was changed because apparently it was an internal decision that was not announced publicly to my knowledge. I do not believe it was announced in the house. The announcement was made in a letter from the federal Minister of Agriculture to the minister of agriculture for Manitoba, dated February 27, 1954.
I would hope that in view of the difficult position in which Manitoba finds itself, particularly in the northwest portion of that province where we have been battling flood conditions for three years, the government would return to the original policy of providing at least that much assistance by lending engineers, at federal government costs, to undertake legitimate surveys which may result in public works projects or P.F.R.A. projects in the future to alleviate these conditions. That is one of the matters to which I wished to direct the minister's attention. The other question has to do with liaison between government departments that expend money for this purpose.
In the same letter to which I have referred the federal Minister of Agriculture expressed his satisfaction to the minister of agriculture in Manitoba with the fact that such works having to do with improvements, reclamation or flood control would be channelled through the provincial minister of agriculture in Manitoba. Incidentally, may I say that I approve of that situation also. I feel that in the past some difficulty has been encountered in trying to find out just who is responsible. In the same letter the federal Minister of Agriculture referred to the request of the provincial minister of agriculture in Manitoba and stated that in so far as the works in the Riding Mountain national park area were concerned, for example, another department of government would be involved. This would be the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of course. It is quite proper and legitimate that this department would have to be consulted. At some stage I should like the minister to state quite clearly in the house whether the same policy will be followed at this end as is being suggested in Manitoba, that is that all such works as have to do with flood control affecting agriculture will be channelled through the federal Minister of Agriculture.
This is important to us in Manitoba because, whenever a request for such projects is made at the municipal or provincial level, a question has often been raised as to the
6, 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act authority in the federal government through which these requests should be channelled. I would hope the federal Minister of Agriculture would be the liaison minister for all departments that have to do with such projects and that he, in turn, would deal with the ministers of agriculture in the various provinces. In that way an orderly method of dealing with these matters would be established.
Personally, I would have no objection to seeing the ministerial authority increased from $10,000 to $15,000, provided that the expenditures are handled expeditiously and efficiently. Whether or not they are, I shall leave to the members from Saskatchewan who have raised the question so far. My purpose is not to enter into any dispute as to whether political appointments have been made. I would rather leave that to a future occasion, if it arises. So far as my own constituency is concerned and my own province, we are interested chiefly in knowing whether the government is inclined to return to its policy of assisting the provinces in making surveys, to the extent of paying the full costs of P.F.R.A. engineers. Secondly, we are interested in knowing whether the federal government is prepared to enter into further agreements with Manitoba for certain flood control projects.
May I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the letter to which I have made reference is dated February 27, 1954. I asked for a return of correspondence, which was brought down in recent weeks, but apparently there has been no further exchange of correspondence on the subject since that date more than a year ago. In the letter from the Manitoba minister of agriculture to the federal minister, which is dated January 19, 1954, we find this closing paragraph:
I am informed as well that the province, in the past, entered into an annual agreement with your department in respect to P.F.R.A. undertakings. I believe that it would be necessary in the interests of our two respective governments to complete an annual agreement at the earliest possible date in order to facilitate this year's program.
That was written on January 19, 1954.


James Garfield Gardiner: The 1954 program has already been agreed upon and carried out. I should like to say by way of explanation that probably a great deal of what took place following that letter took place through interviews between the minister and myself, either when I was in Manitoba or when he was here.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That may explain the reason for the lack of further correspondence on the matter.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
May I draw the minister's attention to the fact that we are now in 1955? I hope that some rather extensive projects are being planned at this time. While I am in complete sympathy with and fully support the requests that have been made for projects to alleviate the situation along the Assini-boine valley, I must bring to the attention of the minister the fact that we in northwestern Manitoba have gone through that same situation for the third year in a row. We have a very serious situation there that will require some major projects. I would hope the minister would be in a position to announce that further agreements have been entered into between the federal government and the province with respect to 1955.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to ask the minister three questions. Perhaps the minister will say whether or not all the sections of this bill were passed in committee of the whole, and if they were so passed is it likely they will be passed again? Secondly, can the house instruct the committee of the whole on what it is to do with any bill? Thirdly, can any new matter be introduced into a debate on third reading of the bill?


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: When the debate on this bill took place a week ago, my leader at that time expressed opposition on behalf of the C.C.F. party. Our opposition is to clause 1, as it reads in the bill that is before us. I want to agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Under this legislation the situation in western Canada, as it is now, calls for the undertaking of works to provide drainage wherever such drainage is needed and the project is feasible. Certainly with the serious flood situation on the prairies we are hopeful that this act may be used to the fullest possible extent to prevent such damage recurring in the future.
I want also to make some comment on the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I hope his statement does not mean that the government is not as sympathetic to this matter of awarding damages as it was some weeks ago. I think it should be pointed out that, even though the weather stays dry every day for the next month, and seeding goes on to the greatest possible extent under dry conditions, nevertheless there will be many farmers in sections of that province who will be unable to complete their seeding operations. There will be substantial areas of land under water; and it has been estimated that the damage to roads resulting from the flooding already amounts to many millions of dollars.

Just as in the past neither the Winnipeg flood nor "Hurricane Hazel" crippled the economy of either Manitoba or Ontario, so the serious flooding in Saskatchewan may not to any greater extent cripple the economy of Saskatchewan. But the flooding in that province has created a situation that should be considered a national emergency by the government, just as it has considered other situations as national emergencies. I believe when the information is all in it will be found that the extent of the damage in western Canada this year will exceed any damage that has taken place on any previous occasion when the federal government has paid compensation. Even though the grain economy may recover, I believe compensation should be paid.
The other part of the bill would delete sections 10 and 11 of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. When the debate was in progress before, I was afraid that this provision might result in the government's discontinuing the practice of leasing land and purchasing machinery where such was necessary to carry out the purposes of the act. We have had an explanation from the minister, and the assurance that, even with those sections deleted, there is sufficient power under the act, as governed by the Financial Administration Act, to undertake the leasing of land and the purchasing of machinery, where such might be necessary.
I think it is correct to point out however that clause 2 in the bill was not asked for by the minister; and from his statement of a week ago it is doubtful whether he is anxious to see clause 2 put into legislative form. It is clear to me, and I think it will be clear to the country, that clause 2 in the bill is a further effort by the minister's colleagues to whittle down his authority in the leasing of land and the purchasing of machinery. It would appear to me as a provision placed in the bill by the Prime Minister with a view to slowing down and governing at least to some extent the Gardiner machine, which has become a pretty notorious thing.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would not mind delaying his final speech until we have something on the record in respect to this matter.
I looked in Hansard to see what was said on May 30 by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), in speaking for this group. Perhaps I might quote from page 4245 where he said this:
All the expenditures that have been made in that area-
And he was referring to his own area.
-have been wisely made. We feel that the people have received full value for the money expended.


Therefore, I am not prepared to oppose this bill. The increase from $10,000 to $15,000 does seem reasonable and in line with the general increase in costs throughout the country.
The attitude of this group is the same today as it was then.
I am not going to make any extended remarks, but I would point out that the hon. member for Acadia did say there might be some difference in administration between P.F.R.A. in Saskatchewan and P.F.R.A. in Alberta. However, he did say that Alberta seemed to be satisfied.
Increases in costs of projects have taken place over the past few years, and in all probability costs today are perhaps half as much again as they were a few years ago. Therefore by giving the minister authority to pass on projects of $15,000 we are not necessarily giving him any more authority than he had a few years ago in connection with projects requiring the expenditure of $10,000. I think, therefore, for this reason the bill could be accepted, and I do not see how we could support the amendment.
Hon. members who have taken part in this and other debates have referred to the state of devastation in Saskatchewan as a result of the floods. I passed through that province a few days ago and I know the situation is serious. We would have to support our Saskatchewan friends in their desire to have assistance granted to the farmers of that province. At the same time I believe I would have to agree with the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon when he said that, after all, anything of that nature would have to come out of the over-all taxes of the country, and that unless it is a case of a national emergency, which would warrant such action, it should not be done. If we can conclude that the flooding has reached the proportions of a national emergency, then of course I would agree that something should be done.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the basis of his observation of the disastrous conditions in Saskatchewan, would the hon. member say that those conditions warrant its being termed a national emergency?


Ernest George Hansell: I cannot answer that question definitely. The part of the province I passed through looked very bad. However I did go through the northern part and did not see very much flooding there.
When we are dealing with the matter of giving assistance to people in circumstances of this kind we must be careful how far we go. I say that because I have a problem in my own constituency, one which affects the coal miners. I am not going to discuss the
6, 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act subject here, but I would point out that in that industry the coal miners are being laid off. They cannot find work because of certain conditions that have been brought about not through any fault either of their own or of the coal-mining industry, but purely because we have been making progress over the years. We might reasonably come to the government and say: This is an emergency; why can something not be done about it? Where are we going to stop in this matter of emergency? However, I do say-


Hazen Robert Argue: You are out of character.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I want to be reasonable all the way around. I like to pull for my people and get all I can for them just as others do. I tell the hon. member for Assiniboia that I am right behind him. If this thing is needed in the province of Saskatchewan-


Hazen Robert Argue: And it is.


Ernest George Hansell: -to any great extent, then something should be done. However, as far as the amendment is concerned, Mr. Speaker, because of our previous pronouncements on the bill, I do not see that we can reasonably support it.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: It is not
very often that I take up the time of the house, but it must be realized from previous speeches I have made in this house that Medicine Hat is in one of the drought areas where the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has done a wonderful job. I am very happy to see this bill which increases the expenditure from $10,000 to $15,000. We know to what extent prices have gone up; we know what it costs to put in a dam today that cost us $5,000 a few years ago.
This bill is necessary. It is not meant to deal with an emergency. It gives the minister authority to spend up to $15,000 on some of these smaller projects. I am well aware of that. In the southeastern corner of the province, which is one of the driest areas in Canada, much drier than the area of the hon. member for Assiniboia, I realize quite well what it will mean. I have a long experience in that area. I was a field man for the provincial department of agriculture in 1936, 1937 and 1938. I know the conditions there. I certainly know what the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has done. I have backed up the minister as far as I could, and I shall continue to do so.
As I said before, this bill is not meant to deal with an emergency situation. It authorizes the minister to spend up to $15,000. A few years ago it was $10,000. I think I am right in saying that. I am very happy
4448	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to support the minister on this bill. I will support him all the way through on it, since I come from one of the driest areas of Canada where the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act really does mean something.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


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


James Garfield Gardiner: -I had not intended to say anything when I came into the house, and probably I would be wise if I did not say anything now in view of the very kind remarks just made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) and the previous speaker. However, in view of some of the remarks made by one or two other speakers, I do not know how I can resist the opportunity to say something.
As has been suggested by a number of those who have spoken, and as I said on second reading, I had the authority when this act was first enacted to decide on projects up to $5,000. There was a reason for that, the reason given by me and by others at the time, which was in 1939. The reason given was that in an area of Canada such as ours west of Winnipeg, where the winters are long and the summers are short, if you have to wait for every contract, no matter what its size, to go through all the process of being considered, first by officials, then being taken to the treasury board and being considered by them and then taken to council and considered by them, half the summer would be over before you got a decision at all on the small jobs. Therefore they decided, after more discussion than has taken place so far on this measure, the minister, no matter who he was-and they thought he was then just as much a machine politician as apparently some people do now-should have that authority. Well, then, we came along to a later period. I have forgotten exactly when it was but it was half way between then and now. They said that $5,000 was not enough for the same reason. They raised it to $10,000 and I have been operating under that. Now, they come along and, for the very reasons recited in the last few moments, say that $10,000 was all right the last time we dealt with it, but it is not good enough now. It must be $15,000 because of the higher cost and for other reasons in connection with it. Therefore, it is suggested that the amount be $15,000.
Some of my hon. friends from the province of Saskatchewan who try to make it appear that they want to be very helpful to the people out there in these difficult circumstances want to say that because Gardiner IMr. Wylie.]

has always been a machine politician we are not going to let him decide whether or not they are to have this help up to $15,000; we are just going to stop it. Well, 1 want to say for the benefit of those who do not know-and apparently there are not very many in this house from Saskatchewan who have looked over the problem-the greater part of the problem is in my constituency. The only member from where the real problem exists who has spoken of it is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang), whose constituency is immediately south of mine. The Qu'Appelle river is the boundary line between our two seats. He outlined to this house on the second reading of the bill the reasons why we are spending money in the Qu'Appelle valley and what the flood conditions are there. There are places in the Qu'Appelle valley where water is nine feet higher than it ever was before. The towns in the east end of that valley are in my constituency. They happen to be all on my side of the river except one, which is on the other side of the river, but for some reason or other it was put in my constituency. All the towns and summer resorts along there within that area are in my constituency. If there is anyone in this house who knows what the conditions are, it is I. Someone asked the other day, why have you not gone out to look at them? I was out there all during the Easter holidays. I was there for three weeks. I was pulled half a mile by tractor while attempting to go from my farm to Regina. On another occasion I was pulled for a piece, and did not reach where I wanted to go. I wanted to go down into the valley on two or three occasions but I could not get there because a section of the valley was badly flooded. I know every foot of it. I have driven over it; I have ridden over it on horseback; I have walked over a lot of it, and I do not need to be there to know what the conditions are. I have seen the conditions in the whole 41 years that I have been in politics, and for some time before that. I have represented those people through all that time, and what I am going to tell you is that they know me sufficiently well and they know the conditions sufficiently well that there is not a single one of them who has ever written me a letter about it. Other people in this house may think they are getting a lot of correspondence, but the people out in my section of the country know that I know the conditions and know that I am making representations that should be made in connection with them, and they are not listening to this propaganda put out largely by the C.C.F. I am not at all surprised that my friend from Prince Albert joins with the C.C.F. on that kind of thing, stating that

the Minister of Agriculture is such a political propagandist and such a political machine that you just cannot give him any more authority.
Let me repeat. They said that when it was made $5,000. They said that when it was made $10,000. There is not a member of this house, on any side of it, who has been able to come here on this occasion and name one specific case where there has been a dollar misspent in connection with the activities of this organization-not one. So I am going to say this. I have prided myself on being somewhat of a political organizer. I would not have been elected every election since 1914 if I were not. Every time my seat has been contested I have been elected. I know something about organizing. I do not think that is something for which one should be criticized by men who have sometimes been able to get into the house and sometimes have not. But I am going to say this to the C.C.F. Since I came here I have had absolutely nothing to do with organization in the province of Saskatchewan in so far as determining how it was going to be run and who was going to run it. If I had, they probably never would have been here.
The fact of the matter is that I had sufficient experience in the province of Saskatchewan getting myself elected in the time I was there provincially, that I was able to win all my elections. I was able to set up an organization, if you like, or you can call it a political machine or whatever you like to call it, which won elections. My last experience in the province of Saskatchewan was in wiping out a government. We were not the government; we did not have control over appointments in the civil service. We had no control over any of those things for five years. My hon. friend from Prince Albert was one of the campaigners against us and followed up by being leader of the party that was in power during that period-


John George Diefenbaker: During what period was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: During the time the Anderson government was in power.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct my hon. friend. If I recollect the date, it was November, 1926, when I became that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; when Mr. Anderson ceased to be leader of the Conservative party, you became leader of the Conservative party, the follower of the premier who was leading the province in 1934. When the
6, 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act election was all over-and this is where I got my reputation-there was not a single member of the government nor a single supporter of the government elected anywhere in Saskatchewan; they were all wiped out. 1 am rather proud of that reputation.


An hon. Member:: It lasted for 20 years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Until this last year there never was another Conservative elected in the province of Saskatchewan. My hon. friend started out with something over 100,000 Conservative voters in the province and wound up last year with 17,000. I do not lead parties in that direction, I am proud to say, and if I am accused of being a party politician, a machine campaigner, and so on, I would very much rather have that accusation made against me than the accusation that I took over a party when it had so many votes and now have it with so few. But the fact is that I took over the party with a certain vote, and I increased the Liberal vote in Saskatchewan until 180,000 people voted for us, and so many had never voted for us before or since. Figures are thrown around of 200,000 and 210,000. You have to count everybody who votes in Regina three times to get it that high. You have to count twice everybody who votes in Saskatoon to get it that high. Each one there votes for two candidates, and in Regina each one votes for three candidates. You have to count twice everyone who votes in Moose Jaw, because each one votes for two candidates. But when you take the actual figures of people who have voted, there never were more who voted Liberal than in 1934 when 180,000 voters voted for us. Even in the last election in Saskatchewan the Liberals got the votes of 168,000 people, only 12,000 down from where we were at our peak. If my hon. friends want to talk about a situation of that kind there, all I have to say to them is that they had better be careful how they vote on this bill, because the people out there do think something about the question as to whether it is sufficient to deal with the situation that exists out there now by saying that the minister can only decide on an amount up to $10,000. The Leader of the Opposition saw the point the other day, when he was speaking in committee. He wanted to know whether this was to give me authority to deal with these particular situations that were going to arise as a result of the flood conditions out there now.


An hon. Member:: He does not know the situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: He had moved to a line of reasoning that is followed today by some of

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act our friends who do not know the situation either. He got around to suggesting that this is an effort to give Mr. Gardiner, the machine politician, the opportunity to go out and take hold of these jobs up to $15,000, whereas previously he could take hold of them only up to $10,000, and decide the situation himself and go out and deal with this flood situation with that power in his hand. The government had no such idea at the time they were considering this matter. They were considering it on its merits before the flood problem ever came up. It was considered by council before that problem came up, and therefore that could not have been the reason. But my hon. friend from Assiniboia today says that we ought to do this and we ought to do that, and that we have never given any thought to the matter. They are a long way from the mark. As a matter of fact, I have a copy here of the Leader-Post of June 3, which was last Friday, the day when we were previously discussing this question. It reports the speech which Mr. McIntosh, the minister of municipal affairs in the Saskatchewan government, made to the urban municipal association. There could not be any group of people getting together in the province of Saskatchewan who understand the situation better than the municipal association. Here is what the article says:
The provincial government is not too concerned about the 1955 agricultural picture in the province, municipal affairs minister L. F. McIntosh told the Saskatchewan urban municipalities associ-tion convention in the Hotel Saskatchewan Thursday afternoon.
Then it goes on to recite the conditions that do exist and to indicate the same figure which has been used here, taken out of the documents presented here when the representatives of the governments have been here on two occasions. It says that it is going to require some $5 million put up by somebody to deal with this situation. May I tell my hon. friends that we have not been losing sight of the fact. We knew, as a matter of fact, what it would cost in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan, from the main line of the C.P.R. to the farthest settled points, to take care of their problem. We knew the problem did not exist in other parts of the province to the same extent and that something had to be done about it in the northeast. So we took action to deal with it, not now but last fall, after that country had been flooded for a whole summer and the provincial government had done nothing at all about it. Now they come here and say to us that this country was flooded in 1953, this country was flooded worse in 1954, this country is flooded worse now in 1955, and they say, "Come and help us out". Of


course we help people out when they require assistance when we are responsible. Knowing as I do that one of my constituents on the north side of the valley has had as many as eight families living with him at one time because they were flooded out of their homes, we know what the situation is, and we also know that you cannot sit down the next morning and evaluate the damage and start to pay for it and deal with people as they ought to be dealt with. So we wait until the minister of municipal affairs in Saskatchewan is able to make a more definite report to a municipal association than he does in this case, and also until we have more definite information.
It has been said by member after member that there ought to be $5 million spent in that area in order to take care of the needs of these people. Last fall we could see something like this coming if it rained a lot, even if it snowed a lot. It did not snow a lot so we thought we were by that, but it rained a lot in the first part of May and so we had the same result as if it had snowed in the wintertime. So we started to look over the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to see what assistance could be given to these people, if any, under the act that had been prepared to deal with drought. We referred the matter to the justice department and they said yes, you might have intended-and we had intended at the time-to be paying on drought but you did not so state in the act. The word "drought" is not in it anywhere. So it is possible for you to pay for other reasons when the results are similar and when the conditions under the act can be made known. So we referred the matter to the treasury board. We referred the matter to the treasury and they agreed. They said, "Yes; payments can be made and this is the way in which you can make them this year under this act and take care of people in areas that perhaps have been paying all the time but never had much if any assistance under the act or very little since 1939." So we made the payments. Fortunately, when this vote is being taken at this present time, practically all the payments have been made. Do you know how much they amount to? They amount to $6,327,766 in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan in the constituencies we are talking of from the main line of the C.P.R. right up to the north. Do you know how much they were from 1939 down to last year? They were $5,505,000. For all the years from 1939 down to the present that area drew only $5,505,666. But for this one year, because of the difficulties that are being spoken about in this house, there has been paid in there $6,327,000. That is, we have

paid in almost $1 million more in one year than was paid during all the other years from 1939 down to this year; and this money has been paid in since the first of January this year and it has been paid up to now. In other words, we have paid $1 million more into that area already out of the treasury of Canada than the provincial government estimates will be required in the whole province in order to take care of the problems we are talking about.
We have not been losing sight of the needs of the people in that section of the province of Saskatchewan, nor have we been playing politics with the matter. I venture to say that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the farmers living in that area have had assistance already and all that is being proposed when they come to see us is that we put in sufficient money to make it possible for the provincial government to go out and put some of these people to work. I know it is a fine thing to put people to work but, from a long experience in the province of Saskatchewan, I also know that $200 or even $150 or $300 or at the outside limit $500 under the act put into the hands of an individual between January 1 and June 1 will do him more good than all the work he can get no matter how much he is paid for it between now and the time that he has to be looking forward to harvesting whatever crop he is going to have. In other words, I just want to impress upon this house the fact that the government has not lost sight of the facts. This report I have read of the urban municipal convention in Regina indicates that what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said a little while ago is correct. He said the province is going on doing the job. What they are suggesting is that, when the job is done, maybe we ought to help pay for it. I am suggesting to you that we put more money into that area before the job was ever started-


John George Diefenbaker: For last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; for this year. The
money which the farmer gets this year paid on account of last year's crop.


John George Diefenbaker: But it is for last year's crop.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer uses the crop he grew last year in order to help him put in one this year; and if he has got prairie farm assistance this year, it is going to help him in order to make it possible for him to put in this year's crop. Our friend the provincial minister says that the provincial government is not too much concerned about the 1955 agriculture picture.


Mr. Campbell:: That is the general picture.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the general picture in the province. He goes on to say this:
"The department of agriculture-
That is in Saskatchewan.
-is making a stern effort to encourage the natural flow of streams in the flooded regions of the province", he	said.	"This week two cars ofdynamite were	sent	out	to help in	the program" . . .
In 1954 some 17 rural municipalities suffered excess moisture . . .
And so on. I just recite that in order to say this. The provincial government after coming here went back home and went to work to try to do the job, no matter who paid for it. They are working at it. All this particular piece of legislation does-if it does anything in relation to	it-is to	say to the	minister:You do not	have	to	wait until	you get
through with all this detail that is required in order to get certain things done; whenever the problem is put up to you as to whether you can help with it, if it is not going to cost more than $15,000, you can make a decision about it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Go out and do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the reasons my friends over there who come from the province of Saskatchewan say, "Do not give it to him. We want to be able to tell him when the next election comes along that he did not do anything about it." It is nothing but politics, pure politics and the meanest kind of politics. I know this house is not going to say that to the Minister of Agriculture on this occasion. They are going to say that you have been carrying on under this act since 1939; there has not been a single member who has been able to come here and put up one word of criticism in connection with the expenditure on any project. Members in opposition to the government here, such as those in the Social Credit group, coming as they do from the driest areas in western Canada, similar to areas in southwestern Saskatchewan, come here and say, "Vote for this measure because it is going to be helpful".
I am going to emphasize what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) brought out a few moments ago. This house voted for this measure on second reading. This house voted on everything that has been put up this afternoon in committee. This house is now asked to send it back to that committee all over again, to have all that talk go on again and another vote taken. I am going to suggest that the quickest way in which to get it over with is to vote for the third reading of this bill and send it over to the Senate. No doubt some people there may have some suggestions to make
4452	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act about amendments. If any amendments are made they will come back here and we will deal with them again. But let us get on with the job. There never was an area in which certain people needed assistance to a greater extent than they do out there now. I am not going to say that it is a national problem nor am I going to say that it is even a provincial calamity all told. There will be areas where the land will produce much more than they have had for a long time past because they have had these three years of additional moisture. There are other areas, however limited, where there has been a great deal of suffering. This article of the provincial government says that 369 people were evacuated. Saskatchewan is not a very small province, even in population. I am going to say that among the 369 people who have been so affected are some just as hard hit as anyone was in Manitoba at the time of the Red river flood, just as hard hit as those people affected by the Fraser river flood at an earlier period, but in no place were they as hard hit as the people along the Humber valley where scores of people lost their lives. In no place in Saskatchewan is there a condition like that. Because there is not, we ought to get down to earth when we are considering this problem and get on with the legislation that makes help possible. Of course anything the federal government does there is likely to be done under P.F.R.A. because the whole organization is set up which can deal with such matters.
May I say here that if I had not come to that point I would have forgotten what the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) said. He misunderstood what I said the other night. I stated there were conditions under which the engineering was not paid. I recited one of those conditions as being the condition we have reached in Alberta. We did the engineering in connection with the St. Mary's dam. We did the engineering in connection with the laying out of the main canals through the whole system right down to south of Medicine Hat. But when it came to letting the contracts on that particular system of canals we said to the provincial government after some experiences, well, maybe you had better let those contracts yourselves and get your own engineers to advise you on them. If you do want the help of some of our engineers because you have not properly trained men that is all right, provided you pay them. We will lend them to you and you pay them because we do not want to get into difficulties on contracts you are handling.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the minister permit me to say that I am afraid he has also misunderstood me. What I was referring to was survey work done outside the P.F.R.A. designated area in the province of Manitoba. What I stated was taken directly from a letter written by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the minister of agriculture of Manitoba stating that there is a change in government policy on that question.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a change in government policy on the question I have just stated. I went further in the letter and indicated to the minister in Manitoba that when we were simply trying to determine whether or not a project should come under P.F.R.A. or was something that the province should do we would still carry on that work. At some stage we may say, "This is yours, we are through". But we pay for it up to that point. I also pointed out that there are different schemes from those we were talking about in the earlier part of the letter. There is the one having to do with Clearwater lake, a summer resort, and also a federal park. If there were going to be any drainage work done inside the park I would have to take the question to the proper department here in order to have it settled whether they wanted drainage done there. But as to any condition outside the park resulting from the fact that snows had melted in the park and the water had run down the rivers and flooded farms we would help. The reason we will only help is the fact that we assume some responsibility because the water came out of the park.
In other similar cases all over the west and all over the rest of Canada we have not assumed responsibility, whether in a P.F.R.A. area or not, for drainage as such. When it comes to matters of drainage of that kind they have to be cases where we have some responsibility apart from what the constitution gives us before we agree to pay. Those were the cases I was talking about together with the development in Alberta. In that case we have reached the point where we think we should turn it over to the province and get out of the picture. We believe they should let the contracts. I think my friend can see the reason for that.
It is not even weeks after you start to put your engineers in to deal with contracts that the provincial government is going to let until some fellow comes in and says that he has been to the provincial government-it does not matter whether it is Alberta or where it is-and has been told that our engineer made a decision and therefore we have got to pay for it. We just do not do business that way. When we get to that

point we have to tell them that any engineer who is there at their request, even if he is a man we trained, has got to be acting as their engineer and they must pay him. Then nobody can say to us that we are playing around with their contracts.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask this question for
clarification? In the event of the province and the federal government arriving at a tentative agreement on a certain project and wishing to have a survey made in order to ascertain the estimated cost, the feasibility and so forth, will the minister state that the federal government is still prepared at their expense to lend their P.F.R.A. engineers for that purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no contracts like that. The federal government never sits down and makes an agreement with any province until our engineers have been all over the project. When we use our engineers to determine whether or not we are going to go into the contract we pay the price. If the job is undertaken and is said to be a provincial responsibility, we may still agree to pay half, as we did at Dauphin. We may also still continue to have our engineers do the engineering work. We do not do that in all cases, but in some we do. However, in determining whether or not we are going to go into a project at all at any stage we do that by putting our engineers on it before any agreement is made with the province, and that will still continue to be the situation.
Finally, I just want to say that I hope the house will vote in the same or even larger proportion for third reading of the bill as they did for second reading and on the different clauses as they were discussed.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has
just closed the debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am no authority on the rules, but was the minister not speaking to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert? Therefore he could not close the debate at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. I hope I did not mislead even the minister by announcing that when he spoke to the amendment he was closing the debate. It may please him to know that he has another speech coming if he wants to make one.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we should take
the vote.
6, 1955
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Mountain.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, under your
ruling the hon. member for Moose Mountain cannot speak until the vote is taken on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: No. We started by debating the third reading of the bill. The hon. member for Prince Albert moved an amendment, and all the members who spoke since the amendment was moved were speaking to the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am asking for a vote on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but the minister cannot ask for a vote unless the discussion is terminated.


James Garfield Gardiner: But when I moved the motion in the first place I spoke. The Speaker stopped me the other day because I wanted to speak after someone got up and asked me a question and I yielded then, but today we have an amendment moved and I was told that if I spoke the debate was closed. I presumed that we were through with the discussion of the amendment and were coming to the vote. Now I am told we are not through with the discussion on the amendment but are in the middle of it. My friend will still have a right to get up and speak, but I would just like to know what the correct ruling is.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may speak on the point, what the minister says is correct as to the order of things. Your Honour did say that the minister was closing the debate, and according to the rules that was not correct, with deference. Would it not be better for the vote to take place now? It would not do the hon. member for Moose Mountain any harm and he could then speak on the main motion. Certainly the minister was under the impression he was closing the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the house wants to do so, I am quite prepared to let it go on provided there is only going to be one vote, on third reading. I am not worrying about it.


Mr. Speaker:: May I again apologize to the house, and especially to the minister, because when he rose I completely forgot about the amendment that had been moved and I announced that if he spoke he would close the debate. I would have been right in doing that if the amendment had not been moved, but since an amendment was moved I had no business saying that at that time. I made that announcement, which should not

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be regarded as a ruling. I was merely acting-at the wrong time-in accordance with the provisions of standing order 43. Since I was in error I think the house should continue the debate as if I had not made the announcement that the minister was closing the debate.


Edward George McCullough: The main point at issue is not the political success or failure of the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, but that we should get some action in respect to flood conditions in that province. I feel deeply concerned about conditions existing there, and have repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister in the hope that we would get an early decision as to what action, if any, the government intends to take.
There have been precedents for the declaration of a national emergency when large scale disasters have occurred in various parts of Canada. It is my hope, of course, that the federal government will see fit to take an active part in the appraisal and restoration of the damages in Saskatchewan resulting from recent floods. I am sure the people of the country would be agreeable to such a course.
I want to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that I am concerned about the basis on which assistance will be provided to the people of these flooded areas. I quite recognize that there is no national authority such as I advocated in an earlier speech, when I indicated that I thought these interprovincial problems affecting drainage in the different parts of Canada and the recurring flood conditions would indicate the advisability of setting up a dominion-provincial diking and drainage authority on which there would be adequate representation of the provinces and the dominion government. Then these large projects could be undertaken in a sensible and businesslike way.
The problem which affects my district more particularly, and the one with which I am fairly familiar, is the flood condition in the Kipling area. In that area approximately a million and a half acres of excellent farmland is presently flooded and will not be seeded to crop this year. A great portion of that land has been flooded for one or two years. It so happens that it is not a marsh area in the true sense of the word. As a result of the natural basins being filled, the water has no other course to follow except to flow over the more level area sometimes referred to as Kipling marsh.
It would take approximately six or seven miles of drainage works to drain that water

into the Pipestone river. In turn this water that is now flooding a million and a half acres there would flow into the Pipestone and on into Manitoba, causing a difficult situation there. I think it should be obvious to the house, therefore, that this is a situation that concerns both the provincial and federal governments, and action by both governments would be necessary to prevent a recurrence of these flood conditions.
I might say that precedents have been established for federal government assistance in some of these projects. I could name quite a number of them, but there is one in particular in the Pipestone lake area where the federal government contributed $130,000 of a total cost of $230,000 in order to remedy that difficulty. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that when we appeal to him to undertake certain action under P.F.R.A. we do so not in an attempt to spell out how action should be taken, but to bring the attention of the federal government to the fact that corrective works in some form should be undertaken in collaboration with the province and the municipality.
I am aware of the fact that in the Kipling district the local authorities have set up a drainage association. Contrary to the impression left by the Minister of Agriculture that Saskatchewan had not done very much in respect to some flooded areas, I want to say to him that since 1949-50, when the conservation act was passed in Saskatchewan, the province has spent approximately $2-5 million. In addition the province completed a survey of the flooded area at Kipling, and I believe they are awaiting federal government action to assist in solving that problem.
I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by appealing to the minister to use his department or use his authority to have assistance given to those people who are


James Garfield Gardiner: And you are going to vote not to give me any authority.


Edward George McCullough: We
have had another interjection by the minister. I think it is true to say that under the measure upon which we are to vote, the minister is now going to have to go to the cabinet to get approval for any projects costing over $15,000. He now has authority up to $10,000. As I also understand, certain sections will be deleted which will prevent the minister from undertaking these works without the approval of treasury board. While on the one hand the bill perhaps gives the minister further rights, on the other hand certain sections are deleted by the amending
445S

bill that will curtail the powers of the minister and force him to go to treasury board for approval.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not under these sections. The only difference is this. I have to go to treasury board instead of to council.


Hazen Robert Argue: Did you always go to council before?


James Garfield Gardiner: Usually.


Hazen Robert Argue: Usually, that is the point; that is the reason for the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is no such thing. Every minister does exactly the same thing. Up to a certain amount he can decide, but when it gets over that amount, under the general legislation he has to go to treasury board. Until now I only had to go to council, and now I only have to go to treasury board.


Edward George McCullough: I do
not know who is making this speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are both making it.


Edward George McCullough: I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister had to say. I think both the house and the minister will agree with this statement. If the minister puts a proposition before the cabinet in such a way that he gets the active support of the cabinet, we do not need to fear whether or not those projects will be undertaken. It does not matter whether the minister's power is limited to $10,000 or $15,000, here is a situation that is going to take much more than $15,000 to correct. It is one for which the minister will have to get cabinet approval before taking action.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Ralph Osborne Campney: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada in respect of such refunding to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $200,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Benidickson:: The bill to be founded on this resolution is to provide for the refunding of Canadian National Railways securities maturing or callable in the years 1956 to 1962. Provision is made either by the issue
Aitken, Miss
Argue
Barnett
Bell
Blair
Cameron (Nanaimo)
Campbell
Cardiff
Castleden
Charlton
Churchill
Diefenbaker
Drew
Ellis
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fleming
Fulton
Gillis
4456	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways of railway bonds guaranteed by the government or by temporary loans from the government. The amount provided is $200 million, the same as was provided in similar acts passed by this house in 1935, 1938, 1944, 1947 and 1951. When hon. members see the bill they will find that it is patterned on the 1951 bill.
The details of the maturing issues are shown in a statement which I should like to have placed on Hansard. It shows the securities that are to be refunded between 1956 and 1962.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that this table be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Moore Benidickson: 
William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member leave to have these tables printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Moore Benidickson: The tables follow:
Detail of Bond Issues sold to the Public Under the Authority of
The Canadian National Railways Refunding Act, 1951*
Issue Date
Maturity Date
Interest Price to Rate Company
Cost to Total Amount Company	Issued
Feb. 1, 1954	Feb. 1, 1974	
3gDec. 15, 1954	Feb. 1, 1963	
3g98-75	3-8498-625	2-94

Amount Issued for Refunding $ 66,162,655.36 36,731,243.00

*A summary of securities to be refunded under this act follows.
Summary of Refundings under C.N.R. Refunding
Act, 1951
Refunded by government loan ____________ $ 13,022,000*
Refunded by public issue	 102,893,898
To be refunded	 84,841,102

'This amount, together with certain other outstanding loans from the government, was converted into a $100 million 3| per cent debenture under the Capital Revision Act, 1952.

Securities to be refunded under Canadian National Railways Refunding Act, 1951
C.N.R. 42 per cent bonds... .$48,496,000 Instalments under equipment
trust issues	 9,060,000
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 4 per cent Series "A" and "B" and Lake Superior
branch bonds	 8,871,444
Other	 142,206


Mr. Macdonnell:: The parliamentary assistant has indicated the purpose of this legislation. We have these various maturities running over the years until 1962 and totalling $200 million. The parliamentary assistant has explained the method followed. I take it the real question that arises is that of interest rates and suitable time for making offerings. That is something that it has been indicated will be dealt with in the judgment of the officials of the Department of Finance or the railway as the years go by.


William Moore Benidickson: And the bank, yes. They are now issued through the Bank of Canada, and of course the bank's judgment will be used.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there a further amount of $27 million of Grand Trunk Pacific securities in addition to the $200 million to be dealt with?


William Moore Benidickson: Not with reference to this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
parliamentary assistant a question relating to one portion of this resolution which states that provision is made for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways, and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada. I should like to ask whether the trend toward the elimination of the word "dominion" in the description of the Dominion of Canada has now terminated, and whether this is a recognition by the government that a few years ago the Prime Minister was correct when speaking in this house he described this country as the "Dominion of Canada"? In a speech in the House of Commons on June 16, 1942, he said, as reported at page 3394 of Hansard:
Canada has been for the last 75 years the "Dominion of Canada", organized by and governed under the British North America Act.
I simply inquire from the parliamentary assistant whether the trend that has been apparent in recent years has now been brought to a temporary stop. I would point out, sir, that while parliament went to considerable trouble to eliminate the word "dominion" in various statutes, it is still recognized as a not unclean word in the Dominion Succession Duty Act, which was amended without changing its name; and indeed in 1952 in the first two vice-regal messages brought before parliament by which the estimates were transmitted the expression used at that time was "for the service of the dominion". However, in June of that year a change was made and in the next message 50433-281
Canadian National Railways brought down the language was "for the service of Canada". I simply would like to inquire whether or not the government now has arrived at a point where the word "dominion" is recognized as a proper word.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


John George Diefenbaker: I should like an answer from the parliamentary assistant.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that would be an appropriate question to the Department of Finance on this particular resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: If the parliamentary
assistant cannot answer it, possibly the Prime Minister could clarify that situation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The expression "Dominion of Canada" has been used for something over 86 years now, and it certainly is not an improper expression, but the name given by the constitution to this country is "Canada". The provinces were united in one dominion under the name of Canada, so "Canada" is quite sufficient to describe the entity that was created by the British North America Act, but it was created as one dominion under the name of "Canada".
I think it is quite proper to use the expression "Dominion of Canada" or to call the country "Canada". The expression is in the British North America Act, and so long as it is there it is certainly complete justification for the description of this country, which has the name of Canada, as the "Dominion of Canada", because the provinces were united by the constitution into one dominion under the name of Canada.
Now, there are some who feel that the expression that was used at that time connotes that this country is under the dominion of some other country. I think the public at large, not only of this country but throughout the world, has now fully accepted the position of equality of status that was declared at the conference of 1926 and confirmed by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada and the other portions of the commonwealth to which that act was made applicable were referred to as the dominions. Is that not correct? I should like the Prime Minister as well to say why it is that we shift back and forth. Some statutes have been amended so as to provide for the description of our country as "Canada"; other statutes retain the words "Dominion of Canada". What is the reason for the uncertainty about it, and why should it be necessary to change to
4458	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways "Canada", instead of allowing the description to remain as it appears in the Statute of Westminster?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know of the need for any change, but the hon. gentleman is sometimes described as Mr. Diefenbaker, Q.C., and sometimes as the hon. member for Prince Albert. They are both appropriate descriptions, and we all now understand who the gentleman referred to is, whichever expression is used. I believe the public now understand that this is the country referred to, whether it is referred to as "Canada" or "the Dominion of Canada".
Hesolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Harris) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 450, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, ISSUE OF SECURITIES, ETC.

John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1955 not exceeding $123,508,334 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1956; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $115,999,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $115,999,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this is the annual resolution that precedes the introduction of the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act. Hon. members will recall that in 1952 the form of this legislation was changed so as to include the financing of all capital expenditures whether authorized in that act or in earlier financing and guarantee acts. This procedure has been followed again this year.
The bill to be founded on this resolution is divided into three specific parts. The first


is to authorize the Canadian National Railways to incur capital expenditures up to $75,999,000. The second authorizes the railway company to make capital expenditures prior to July 1, 1956, to discharge obligations incurred under this act which become due and payable after January 1, 1956, in the amount of $40 million. The third authorizes the railway company to enter into contracts for new equipment and for general additions and betterments in the amount of $45,681,498.
To summarize, parliament is being asked to approve financing, either by way of the issue of new securities guaranteed by the government or by way of direct loan, in the amount of $115,999,000. For the convenience of hon. members I would ask permission to place on Hansard a table giving the details of this amount.
In addition, this year's bill will provide for the appointment of the auditors of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1954. Hon. members will remember that in previous years the appointment was made by a special bill. As this relates to the finances of the railway it was felt appropriate to include it in the annual financing and guarantee act. I may say that the figure of $115,999,000 that I have mentioned for this year compares with $234 million last year.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member leave to place the table he mentioned on Hansard1


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Moore Benidickson: The table is as follows:
Additions and betterments (excluding
new equipment)	 $ 44,758,334
Branch line construction	 12,160,000
New equipment	 60,897,000
Acquisition of securities	 5,693,000
Capital expenditures, January 1, 1956 to June 30,	1956, incurred prior to
January 1, 1956	 40,000,000

Less:
Amount available from depreciation reserve .. $ 12,394,000 Retirement of equipment 20,115,334 Working capital available for capital expenditures 15,000,000

	47,509,334


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The statement which the parliamentary assistant has placed on Hansard, and of which I received a copy, shows certain amounts deductible from what would otherwise be expended, namely depreciation reserves, retirement of equipment, and working capital available for capital expenditures, totalling in all some $47 million. That does not include a figure which was in the statement placed before the committee by the officials of the railway, a figure of some

$19 million from the sale of preferred stock. My understanding is that that will be referred to in the bill.


William Moore Benidickson: It was referred to in last year's bill. This year's bill will be patterned on last year's and will provide that the $115,999,000 is to be inclusive of anything that is subscribed by the finance minister for preferred stock of the railway under the refinancing act of 1952.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While it is as broad as it is long, when in fact that preferred stock is purchased the amount required will be altered in that way. I have one other question. The Minister of Transport notified the house a day or two ago of certain additional expenditures on branch lines in Quebec. Will that amount be included in these figures, and will it be in this legislation?


William Moore Benidickson: That is apart from the amounts referred to in the C.N.R. resolution. My understanding is that those will be covered in the supplementary estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: By what?


William Moore Benidickson: The supplementary estimates.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: for leave to introduce Bill No. 451, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system, etc.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to assist fishermen engaged in primary fishing enterprises by encouraging the provision of bank loans to fishermen, such loans to be guaranteed with limitations by the crown; moneys payable to banks under the act to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Sinclair:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance was good enough to ask me whether I would give the explanation of this resolution. This is to be a bill of the Department of Finance, but of course it is of special interest and concern to the fishing industry in Canada.
50433-281J
Fisheries
With all due modesty I must claim some little part in the paternity of this measure. In the four years that I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, twice I put through in this house the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I must confess that I do not think any other bill so impressed me as being an extremely useful piece of legislation that proved to be of great assistance to the farmers of Canada. The first year the act was in operation, as I recall it, just $3 million was lent for limited purposes. In recent years almost $100 million a year has been lent under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
When I became Minister of Fisheries I was naturally anxious that a similar act be passed in order to enable the fishermen to get the same type of intermediate credit from the chartered banks at reasonable rates because of a government guarantee to the banks against losses. However, we found that there were certain obstacles. One of the obstacles was the fact that the type of fisherman who needed such assistance most-that is the fisherman with just a small boat-found it almost impossible to insure his vessel at reasonable rates. Naturally the banks are rather reluctant to lend money on the security of a fishing boat which could be lost at sea, if that boat had no insurance.
Two years ago, as a first step in this direction, as hon. members will recall, we brought in the fishermen's indemnity fund, which gives a form of insurance to commercial fishermen on payment of a premium of 1 per cent. That scheme is now working out very well, so it is now possible to take the next step of introducing a fishermen's improvement loans act similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act in order to give these fishermen the opportunity of obtaining intermediate credit on favourable terms.
Having made that explanation I think perhaps I should now actually read the statement which would have been given by the Minister of Finance, in order to give accurately the financial details of this proposal.
The purpose of this bill is to increase the availability of intermediate-term credit to fishermen. It is to help the average fisherman to make more use of the credit facilities of the banks to meet his business needs. As hon. members are aware, the existing practices by which the average fisherman who owns his own boat and fishing equipment can borrow money to improve his capital equipment differ throughout the industry and in different regions of the country. In general they fall short of the opportunities which are open to small urban business owners and to farmers.

Fisheries
In the fisheries, short-term or seasonal credit is provided mainly by fish buyers, supply houses, merchants, credit unions and, to some extent, by the banks. In addition there are provincial loan boards in some of the provinces which provide long-term credit to fishermen for the purchase of larger boats, as part of the provincial economic development programs. The government feels that additional credit facilities should be particularly useful in the field of intermediate-term credit. We believe that a gap exists so far as this type of credit is concerned, and it is hoped that the proposed act will put the fishermen on an equal footing with farmers with respect to bank borrowing to meet their capital needs.
In short, we hope this act will enable fishermen to borrow from the banks for periods of, say, two to eight years for the purchase or major repair of boats, engines, gear and the like. This will not only improve the lot of the average fisherman but, in those cases where fish-processing companies are thereby relieved of the need to lend money to fishermen for capital improvements, it will also mean a lesser demand on the working capital of these processing companies and, consequently, an improvement in their competitive position.
Perhaps I could intervene here in order to explain the various ways in which fishermen across the country get what intermediate credit is available to them. In the province of Newfoundland it is almost entirely given by merchants in the little outports. It is very seldom in the form of cash but generally in the form of credit.
In Nova Scotia it is a combination of credit by the merchants and credit by the fishing companies. The fishermen who work for fishing companies will get credit from the fishing company for the improvement of their boats and gear. The fishing companies, of course, borrow that money on their credit standing from the chartered banks. In British Columbia it is almost entirely from the fishing companies. The major fishing companies of British Columbia have millions of dollars outstanding in interim credit to fishermen for the purchase and improvement of their boats and gear.
The situation is not very satisfactory either to the fishermen or the companies. The companies have to borrow money for purposes other than the processing of fish. The fishermen who obtain loans from these companies naturally feel bound to them as far as the sale of fish is concerned, and so perhaps have not the full advantage of a competitive market.

The introduction of direct bank loans to the fishermen will remove both these difficulties. It will remove from the companies the obligation or necessity of advancing such moneys which they have to borrow from the banks, and it will give the fishermen the opportunity to borrow directly from the banks and so will relieve them of any direct tie in with the company which might affect the way they choose to sell their fish.
Returning to the statement of the Minister of Finance, for these reasons it is thought desirable that facilities similar to those provided under the Farm Improvement Loans Act should be made available to the fishermen. Since the enactment of the Farm Improvement Loans Act in 1945, over $500 million has been provided through bank loans to farmers for the improvement and development of farms. A certain proportion of these loans is guaranteed by the government and, as is well known, the actual amount of loss over the years has been small. On the whole these farm improvement loans have been of considerable value in the improvement and mechanization of Canadian farms.
The Farm Improvement Loans Act has ensured that credit facilities are available to farmers at reasonable rates of interest and for sufficiently long terms. The scheme under which these loans are made takes advantage of the existing network of branch banks, and the government guarantee has had the effect of encouraging the banks to engage in a new field of bank lending. As a result, Canadian farmers have benefited from a cheaper and more efficient method of financing the purchase of farm implements and equipment. It is hoped that similar methods will prove of use to fishermen and enable them to take advantage of more efficient methods of operation.
I feel it necessary, however, to point out that these objectives cannot be realized overnight, and that we must be prepared for fairly slow progress. Fishing communities are more scattered and isolated compared with the average farm settlement, and bank facilities are not easily accessible to all of them. It is to be expected, therefore, that additional bank lending, even under a government guarantee, will only develop gradually. Mind you, that was the picture, too, of loans under the first Farm Improvement Loans Act. The actual progress was very slow the first year or two, but when knowledge of the plan became more widespread and the banks became more accustomed to this type of loan the rate of lending increased very rapidly.

I turn now to the provisions of the proposed act. Simply stated, the act lays down the general conditions which the banks must meet in order that their loans to fishermen can be covered by the government guarantee. Of necessity the details governing these and other aspects of the scheme must be left to the regulations. In order to offset the special risks of bank lending in a relatively new field, and to provide a reasonable incentive for the banks to expand their business in this direction, each bank will be guaranteed against loss up to 15 per cent of the total amount of its loans where the aggregate amount of its loans does not exceed $500,000. A guarantee of 10 per cent will be applicable to the total loans made by each bank in excess of $500,000-a 15 per cent guarantee on the first $500,000 and 10 per cent on loans above $500,000. Any amount payable to a bank under the act will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
I would hope that this guarantee will diminish the obstacles to bank lending in the fisheries, or compensate for them. Our previous experience with loans made by the chartered banks under a partial government guarantee to farmers, veterans and home owners has shown that the banks have been fully co-operative. They have expanded their operations in these directions and this experience, along with the efficiency shown by the banks in these operations, give us good reason to look with confidence toward the improvement of the fisheries in this regard.
Of course it will be necessary to fix an over-all limit to the total amount of loans made by all banks to which this government guarantee will apply. Having considered the annual capital requirements of the primary fishing industry, a ceiling of $15 million over a three year period was thought to be reasonable. At the end of the three year period it will be appropriate to reconsider the adequacy of this figure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Revolving?


James Sinclair: It would be, yes. I may say that as Minister of Fisheries I think this figure is more than adequate for the first three years.
The purposes for which bank loans may be made are broadly defined in the act and include every kind of permanent improvement associated with a primary fishing enterprise. Loans may be made for the purchase or construction of a fishing vessel or the hull, superstructure or engine of the vessel; the purchase or construction of shore installations, and the purchase, construction, repair or alteration of any building used in a primary enterprise, such as a net loft, for example.
Fisheries
I should point out, perhaps, that the act does not make provision for loans for home improvement. As you know, this type of borrowing from the banks is provided for under the National Housing Act. It is quite true the Farm Improvement Loans Act now provides for home improvement, but that came in only after several years of operation.
Guaranteed loans will be confined to bona fide commercial fishermen. The conditions of eligibility are not onerous, but a borrower will be expected to have a financial stake in fish-catching equipment appropriate to the type of fishery in which he is engaged. It is not intended to make the benefits of this legislation available to commercial fishing enterprises, that is, plants ashore.
The provisions in the act dealing with the taking of security are substantially the same as in the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. It is intended that the security requirements to be laid down in the regulations will be flexible and will be appropriate to the conditions and practices of the different fisheries.
The maximum amount which may be borrowed by a fisherman has been set at $4,000. The maximum period of repayment will be eight years and the regulations will set forth appropriate terms for loans of various amounts. The rate of interest which the bank may charge on loans will be 5 per cent, the same rate now applicable to farmers. The regulations will give guidance in the matter of down payments and the frequency of instalments. As far as is practically possible, the terms and conditions of loans will be such as to conform with the individual circumstances of the borrower, having in mind the size and purpose of the loan.
Among other things, the act will make provision for regulations and the measures which the banks must or may take in the event of default. This follows largely the example set in the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I should add that although we already have on the statute books a Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act, this act has proven unsuitable to the needs of fishermen. Very few loans have been made under it, and it is therefore intended that no further loans shall be made under this act when the proposed fisheries improvement loans act comes into force.
The Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act was enacted in 1935 as a companion act to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. It is chapter 52 of the statutes of 1935. It provided for only long-term loans and security by mortgage on the fisherman's land and home. It has proved of very little advantage. In the last report of the Canadian farm loan board, that for

Fisheries
1954, they say there have been only 79 loans under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act since it was passed in 1935, totalling $40,000, and there are only eight of these loans outstanding today. That act will be repealed when this act comes into effect.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, coming as 1 do from a province where agriculture is our first industry in importance and fisheries our second, I am very conscious of the comparison and contrast between federal legislation dealing with agriculture on the one hand and with fisheries on the other. We are all familiar with the legislation placed on the statute books at various times dealing with certain phases of the two industries- production, research, marketing and longterm credit. There has been similar legislation in both fields. But for a number of years now, as the minister has pointed out, there has been provision under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for intermediate-term loans to farmers. I think most farmers will agree this is most useful legislation, and that it has been very successful and has fulfilled very well the need for which it was designed.
In contrast to that, until now, for reasons which the minister has pointed out, the same type of credit was not readily available to fishermen. Fishermen in the maritimes at least have suffered from that lack of credit. The circumstances under which they have laboured have been a handicap to them. Therefore the legislation forecast by the resolution is, generally speaking, welcomed by this group because we feel if it is as successful as the Farm Improvement Loans Act it will certainly meet a very considerable need.
However, there is one thing I should like to point out. When credit of this type was not available to fishermen through the banks in certain areas of the country the fishermen formed credit unions. These credit unions have financed this type of loan for a great many years.
It has occurred to me to wonder whether consideration has been given-I presume it has, or I hope it will be-to the position these credit unions will now occupy when this legislation guarantees loans from the banks. Perhaps loans from credit unions will not be guaranteed by this legislation; I am not sure of that. I would hope the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance would both carefully consider the possibility of including loans made by credit unions to these fishermen, and treating them the same as loans made by banks. This would avoid putting the credit unions in an unfavourable credit position with the banks,

after they have served the fishermen well for a number of years so far as intermediate-term loans are concerned.
Having said that, I think I might say that in principle it would seem the legislation forecast by this resolution will improve the position of the fishermen. I should like to say again that I hope the position of the credit unions, which in many cases are owned by the fishermen themselves, will not be forgotten, and that consideration will be given to incorporating into this legislation a provision guaranteeing loans made by credit unions. After all, the fishermen contributed to these unions and in that way worked out their own financing problems for some years.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: 
Mr. Patterson:: I rise to express my appreciation of this resolution that is now before us, and to give it our support. For some time now the fishermen have felt that in some respects they have been placed at a disadvantage. They have looked around and seen the facilities that have been placed at the disposal of those engaged in other industries, and then compared their own limited facilities. This has led them to believe they have been at a disadvantage. I am sure the measure now before us will receive the wholehearted support of the fishermen, and they no doubt will express their appreciation of it.
The minister has made a statement outlining some of the features that will be embodied in the bill. At this time it is not possible for us to comprehend all that is
Fisheries
involved, so we are going to leave any further comment until the bill is introduced. However, let me again say we welcome this measure and intend to give it our support.


Mr. MacEachen:: Like other hon. members who have already spoken on this measure, I want to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries for introducing the legislation forecast by this resolution. Since he has been minister the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces have become accustomed to getting constructive measures from his department, and this is simply another constructive measure in the series already adopted under his leadership.
The effect of this legislation will be to assist in the further capitalization of the fishing industry of the Atlantic provinces. In reaching that objective the legislation will be meeting one of the real, historic problems of the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces. The need for the modernization of the fishing industry in production, distribution and processing has been already underscored by persons who are very familiar with that industry in this country. One of the great difficulties in attacking this modernization has been the lack of available capital for the development of modern equipment for production, distribution and processing.
In 1945, when the provincial government at Halifax appointed its royal commission on provincial development and rehabilitation, Professor Dawson, the chairman of that commission, retained the former deputy minister of fisheries, Mr. Bates, to investigate the condition of the fisheries in the Atlantic provinces, more particularly in Nova Scotia. I think it was as a result of the masterful analysis of the industry made by Mr. Bates that we have obtained so many commendable improvements in the industry.
I am sure it will surprise hon. members to learn that as late as 1940 the investment in fishing vessels in Nova Scotia was $3-1 million and in gear was $2-5 million. The total investment in catching equipment as recently as 1940 in Nova Scotia was $5-6 million, which represents an average investment per fisherman of something like $800. This of course has reflected very seriously in the type of craft the average fisherman could use. It was reflected also in his range from the shore, and also in his great dependence on the weather. So the fisherman in the maritime provinces was always handicapped by the instruments with which he had to pursue a very difficult and hazardous occupation. The result was that over 80 per cent of the fishermen of Nova Scotia had to depend for their incomes upon the types of fish that were easily caught along the shore.

Fisheries
This lack of capitalization in the fisheries of Nova Scotia resulted from the fact that no credit agency ever interested itself seriously in providing loan facilities for the fishermen. As the minister pointed out in his remarks, the fishermen depended primarily for the satisfaction of their credit needs upon the fish exporter or the local merchant, which resulted in a type of feudal bondage in the fishing communities of Nova Scotia that has been very difficult to eradicate, and has been one of the real obstacles to improvement in the industry itself.
Also the general unprofitability of the industry, in the thirties particularly, led to a condition in which no facilities were provided either by the life insurance companies, the mortgage companies or the trust companies to service the credit needs of the fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia. It was also realized that this lack of credit facilities, and the development of this relationship among the exporter, the local merchant and the fisherman, should be remedied. Great efforts were undertaken through the credit union movement in the maritimes to overcome this condition.
However, the development of credit unions was not adequate to provide long-term credit, although it did make an excellent contribution in providing for the short-term credit needs of fishermen of Nova Scotia. At that time the credit unions undertook a very difficult task in offering loans to fishermen whose gear and boats were never insured, and indeed who had very little security to offer to the credit unions offering the loans.
Therefore I wish to join with the other hon. members who have spoken in urging that the minister consider allowing credit unions to become lending agencies under this proposed legislation. The credit unions of Nova Scotia have an excellent history of sound and trustworthy business operations. Since the organization of the credit unions total loans of approximately $40 million have been made to their membership. Of that amount only $37,000 has been charged against the guarantee fund. During the same time in New Brunswick a total of $34 million has been lent and only $12,000 has been written off by way of bad debts. The result is that we can offer evidence of good and trustworthy credit institutions.
The credit unions, in many instances, are completely owned and operated by the fishermen. Furthermore they are located in small villages which normally are not served by the chartered banks. In addition to this, in the operations of many credit unions there is a loan protection insurance contract which
[Mr. MacEachen.l
insures that upon the death or total disability of the borrower, the loan is paid off.
Because I believe the inclusion of credit unions would indeed enhance the operations of this proposed measure, and would enlarge the number of outlets for service to the fishermen, I suggest that some further consideration be given to the institutions which really assisted the fishermen in those days when the normal credit organizations in the country regarded fishermen as poor risks.
Let me say in conclusion that the credit unions have taken a keen interest in the whole social and economic evolution of the many fishing villages in which they operate. For that reason I am sure they would be among the very first who would attempt to take advantage of the terms of this proposed legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister referred to the fishermen's indemnity fund. Could he give us the figures in that connection?


James Sinclair: On my estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could he give us some information about the losses sustained in connection with farm improvement loans? I understand they are small. Perhaps he could give us a rough figure on that. Also I would ask what security the government demands. In connection with loans on land, of course they are very simple and easy to give, and facilities are available everywhere. Is there any difficulty in connection with fishermen giving security? Is there any problem connected with local laws which would make it difficult to do that, in a general way?


James Sinclair: I understand the local problems to which the hon. member refers. Most of the coastal provinces have legislation forbidding the seizure for debt of a fisherman's boat or gear. Those are considered to be the implements of his trade. But our legal officers point out that in this instance the fisherman voluntarily enters into a covenant in the nature of a mortgage on his boat or engine, in return for this loan. Our legal authorities are assured that this sort of agreement can be entered into legally. So the security of course will be the fisherman's boat or gear, which will of course be covered by insurance.
Then, so far as the fishermen's indemnity fund is concerned, that is in fact an insurance scheme for small fishing vessels. We have the full details in our records for three years of operation.	,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Speaking generally, has it been successful?


James Sinclair: Yes; we have been able to increase the coverage in British Columbia

for the same premium, because the premiums coming in have been much greater than the losses. In the maritime provinces we have just about broken even on vessel insurance, but have lost a little on gear insurance. We are trying out one form of gear insurance, lobster trap insurance, to find out whether it is possible to insure gear-that is, gear in the water.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Mr. Chairman, I wish to give my hearty support to the principle behind this resolution. It is another important step in the progressive legislation affecting the fisheries enacted by this government in the past few years.
We hear much these days of productivity and its vital importance to a prosperous industry. We tend to think that efficiency and mechanization are more important to manufacturing and mining, perhaps, than they are to the fishing industry. I would like to put the emphasis the other way and point out that modern equipment not only means greater take-home pay to the fisherman, but it is also important to his safety and at times even a matter of life or death. This fact has been obscured because the fishermen have had to make do with what they could obtain on their own or on the credit of local merchants and processors. The very hazards of the industry have prevented the banks from providing much needed credit for the smaller individual fisherman.
The first steps to alleviate this problem were taken in 1953, when the government made provision for cheap insurance for smaller boats and gear. At the same time protection against extraordinary losses to lobster traps was afforded under an insurance scheme administered by the Department of Fisheries. These measures set the stage for the extension of bank credit, and with a guarantee against a proportion of losses proposed in this bill they should assure a flow of much-needed capital to the industry.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and the hon. member for Queens in their statements regarding credit unions. We have many credit unions in Nova Scotia and we have the credit union league of Nova Scotia at Anti-gonish which is affiliated with the credit union national association. There were times during the years when fishermen found it absolutely impossible to obtain any loans from the banks, and it was through these unions that they got into business, sometimes in a small way and at other times on quite a large scale. I would ask the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance to give every consideration to the credit unions so they may 50433-282
Fisheries
come under these guaranteed loans. As a matter of fact, today in Nova Scotia the credit unions play a large part in our economy.
As with the Farm Improvement Loans Act, this legislation is designed to be of assistance to the smaller fisherman. The loans are limited in size and term, and will be taken up mainly by the inshore fishermen. This, however, should not be taken as an indication of the government's paternalism to this aspect of the industry. The companies operating trawlers and associated processing plants can usually arrange their own financing because of the nature of their assets.
It should be emphasized that the inshore and offshore fisheries are really two different industries rather than competitive parts of the same trade. The lobster fishery, for example, is prosecuted entirely by inshore fishermen, and it is very important to all of us that the largest possible catches be obtained. Last year the volume landed in Nova Scotia was 22,971,000 pounds, with a value of $8,838,000. Almost the whole production was exported to the United States. There is no problem in marketing fresh lobsters from Nova Scotia, and the more our fishermen catch the more United States dollars Canada earns.
I am indeed sorry to learn, and I find it very hard to understand, that the bill does not include a provision for improving the living conditions of fishermen's families similar to that guaranteed in the Farm Improvement Loans Act, by facilitating the provision of electrification, refrigeration, heating and water systems in their homes, and other improvements to reduce work, particularly for women in the home; for we must recognize that fishing, like farming, is not only a means of livelihood but is also a way of life. The fisherman and his family are entitled to the benefits of our modern society, provided that their enterprise is soundly based. While we all admit that the fisherman's lot is a hard one, we state emphatically that it is soundly based.


Mr. Bell:: I should like to indicate generally my interest in this piece of legislation. I think it will be accepted by the fishermen in the harbours and along the coast of New Brunswick. I have three hopes I should like to express, that I should like to see in the bill when it is introduced by the minister.
I mention first of all the regulations. They will be separate from the bill, and I express the hope that they will not be too rigid, too strict or too difficult with respect to loans. We all know that while the farm loans have been fairly successful they have been quite

Fisheries
difficult to obtain, and we hope the fishermen will find it a little easier to obtain the small loans they need for their equipment.
The minister mentioned that the loans will be confined to bona fide fishermen. I would hope that the interpretation of this expression would include fishermen who are on a parttime basis, and even some who may be on a sharing plan. These are the small operators who have other occupations. They do other work in the winter, and when the fishing season rolls around they take to the harbours along the coast to fish for salmon and gaspereau. We hope they will be included, because this is one group who will be very much in need of assistance such as this.
Third, the insurance problem was not made clear to me. I know that insurance was mentioned. The minister said the equipment would be insured. I am wondering whether a mutual scheme is being considered. Perhaps that would be the best method. I am wondering whether the responsibility for insurance will fall on the fisherman. Perhaps the mutual plan would be a little more desirable from the fisherman's point of view.
With these reservations we welcome this legislation. It has been said that this is the second stage. The first stage was low-cost insurance. I hope there will be a third stage. I was pleased to hear the other day that consideration was being given to unemployment insurance. I hope that is another stage in meeting the demands of the small fisherman. The department and the minister generally have been making quite an effort for the fisherman. It has been directed mainly toward the offshore fisherman, as has been admitted. We hope this is another stage in the plans of the department, and that they will consider those people who will always be small operators but who perform quite a duty in our everyday life on the east coast.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, it is getting on to six o'clock. Ordinarily I would not discuss a resolution preceding a bill, I would wait for the bill; but in this particular case I am pretty sure the bill will not contain one of the features which I would like to see included in it.
Some three weeks ago I received telegrams from the secretary of the Nova Scotia credit union league and from one of the directors of the Nova Scotia co-operative union, asking me to determine on the resolution preceding the bill whether the legislation would contain a provision under which credit unions would be given the same privilege as the chartered banks. I checked with the people in the Department of Finance who would know, and after some time I was informed from that

source that the provision I was thinking about, that the bill would be applicable to credit unions in the same way as to chartered banks, would not be in the bill.
So at this time I am going to argue, maybe at some length, why I believe what I want should be in the bill, in the hope that we may be able to persuade the minister to carry the matter a little further before the bill comes in.
Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, for a minute or two before six o'clock I was making a few remarks upon this resolution that precedes the bill. At that time I had pointed out that ordinarily I do not discuss a resolution preceding a bill but rather wait for the bill itself. However, in this particular case, after I saw this resolution on the order paper some three weeks ago and after others saw it outside the house, I received some correspondence and telegrams.
I mentioned two; one was from the treasurer of the Nova Scotia credit union league, and the other was from one of the directors of the Nova Scotia co-operative union, suggesting that I might get in touch with the people in the finance department who would have to do with the drawing of the bill and determine whether it was the intention of the government, in the bill that will come in after this resolution is passed, to bring credit unions as such within the scope of the legislation; that is, to find out whether it was the intention to provide for that chain of finance in what is being provided for the chartered banks by the proposed legislation.
After probing the matter with people in the finance department who, I suppose, checked it carefully with their officials and advisers, I was told this. You might as well make your speech, because that particular chain of finance is not going to be included. So at this time, before the bill is finalized and brought into the house, I am going to offer some arguments as to why I think the credit union chain of finance across this country should be included in the bill.
When the bill is brought forward, Mr. Chairman, it will embody exactly the same principle as that embodied in the Industrial Development Bank Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The industrialist who

Avants to expand his plant through the industrial development bank, or who wants to make additions to it, can go to the chartered banks and borrow a certain amount of money with the government underwriting the risk. The same thing is true with respect to the farmer under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. In the final analysis it is the taxpayers of Canada who accept the risk in that particular line of investment. I cannot see any reason why in this particular bill, if the taxpayers are going to underwrite the risks for the chartered banks, it is not possible for the government to include what is a fairly well established chain of finance across this country today, namely the credit unions.
I should just like to point this out, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the desirability of bringing the credit unions under this bill as lending institutions. I was associated with that movement for a long time, and I am still a participating member. I can remember the situation back in the 1930's. We were at that time living in what I considered to be a rather hopeless world. There was not much to fasten on to. Everybody was unemployed. Everyone was seeking a way out, and nobody seemed to know the way. At that time, when St. Francis Xavier University decided that at least they were going to try to do something, they proposed the setting up of study groups throughout the province. I might say I helped them in that matter. We began to study the possibilities of doing things for ourselves. At that time it looked to us as though the mechanics of society, as we had known them, had pretty well broken down and that there was not much hope.
When that credit union movement first started, with nobody seeking any remuneration but merely trying to establish an objective that would give people something to fasten on to by way of changing the mechanics of society, we were laughed at fairly generally. We were called the new bankers. I can remember quite well that I helped dig postholes for about the third credit union that was established in that province. We put on an excursion. We gathered a bit of money. We obtained some material. Then we dug the holes for the concrete posts on which we put our first building.
Of course we were ridiculed. There were not many of us then. But today that organization has proved itself. In this particular field

the field of the fishermen, right from the Gaspe coast clean through to Newfoundland-that was the movement that came to their rescue. The banks were not interested. There was no collateral. You could not get a loan. The credit unions were formed, largely along the Gaspe coast; and I think 50433-282J
Fisheries
it was equally true out on the Queen Charlotte islands on the British Columbia coast.
The fishermen today have their own means of credit. They built those local organizations into leagues in the provinces; in every province in Canada today there is a credit union act. In addition to the acts that look after the legal and accounting needs of the local credit unions, there is the credit union league where the surplus finances of the credit union units are pooled for the purpose of making long-term loans.
In addition to that, the scope has been expanded. It was only recently, I think in 1953, that the present federal government enacted the national credit societies act. The purpose of that act was to link up the credit unions of Canada from coast to coast under a national charter. Today, for all practical purposes, you have the national chain with all the mechanics that can be devised by government linking that national chain from coast to coast.
I am at a loss to understand why the government should take the position that credit unions cannot be included as lending institutions under the terms of this resolution. The provinces provide for check-ups. Every three months the books of every local union are audited by a government auditor. Reports are made monthly to the provincial treasurers. Every bit of protection that can be brought to bear on the organization, in making it responsible to its membership and in forcing it to care properly for its funds, has been brought to bear on it.
Prior to the setting up of the national credit societies act the unions operated provincially, but that is no longer true. With the mechanics set up under the national act today, this organization can make loans inter-provincially. Suppose, for example, a province like Saskatchewan, where there is quite a large amount of development, wanted to invest money in Nova Scotia. The last figure I saw indicated that the combined assets of the credit unions in Saskatchewan topped some $27 million, but they are lending money to a much greater extent than that. If Saskatchewan, for example, wanted to invest money in Nova Scotia or in New Brunswick or on the Gaspe coast, by lending it to fishermen, there would be nothing to stop Saskatchewan from investing in this organization for that purpose, if credit unions were included as lending institutions under the legislation that is being brought in here. There is no reason in the world why it should not be done at this time, unless the government decides not to do so.
I want to make it very clear that this is not a plea by any particular party in the

Fisheries
house. Nobody has a monopoly of the field with which we are dealing this evening. The remarks of hon. members on the government side of the house, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and the junior member for Halifax, the remarks of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and of several from this group, have indicated very clearly to the government that this is not a partisan move at all. It is a move that I think practically every member of the house will agree with, provided cabinet council or the advisers of the Minister of Finance say that the proposition is practical.
Let me call another important and very good witness from the other side of the house. He puts the case for the proposition perhaps much clearer than most of us could. Some time ago I happened to pick up an address delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Stoney Point cooperative at St. Joachim, Ontario. In that speech he dealt with the purposes for which co-operatives were formed. The minister's speeches are always very good reading. They contain a lot of logic, are forward-looking, and he is a very good witness at this time. In speaking on the subject I am commenting on at the present time he said at page 3 of his speech, along with a lot of other good advice:
In 1953 parliament passed the Co-operative Credit Associations Act which provided a legal framework for the co-operative credit structure in Canada.
If the minister's cabinet colleagues and the advisers of the Minister of Finance take the minister's words literally, in the way he intended them, they will realize he was pointing out to the co-operative group which he was addressing that the government had passed an act to set up a new financial structure in Canada under which it is possible for credit unions from coast to coast to pool their resources and sponsor any desirable project in any part of the country.


James Sinclair: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


James Sinclair: The hon. member recalls, of course, that was a private bill and not a government-sponsored bill.


Clarence Gillis: It does not make any difference. The government certainly must have been favourable to it. Otherwise it would never have been passed.


James Sinclair: There is a great difference between credit union societies coming forward to incorporate by private bill as federal companies and government-sponsored legislation in the financial field.


Clarence Gillis: I do not see any difference at all. The minister was taking full credit for it at this meeting. He said the government had passed the bill. That is all right, because if the government had not agreed it would never have been passed. I think they showed very good judgment at that time in passing the legislation, and I compliment the minister on making that clear to the people to whom he was talking. In his place I would have done exactly the same thing and would have never mentioned a private bill.


Mr. Martin:: Did I not say that parliament
passed the act?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, you did. I stand corrected, but that is merely a matter of quibbling with words. The government with its majority still manages parliament. However, I think that point is pretty well established. In referring to what I am arguing for at this time the minister pointed out that we should give these people the opportunity to finance their own endeavours through this new chain of finance existing in the country.
May I say here, Mr. Chairman, that as far as I am concerned if any sensible changes are to be made in the structure of society in future they will have to be based on more ownership for more people. Making loans available to fishermen for the purpose of expanding the fishing industry is one way in which more ownership can be placed in the hands of more people.
The fisheries industry, as the Minister of Fisheries points out very clearly every time I hear him talk, is undergoing a drastic technological change. The fishing industry, as well as almost every other industry in the country, is going through the process of mechanization. More and more the need for better equipment and larger boats for the shore fishermen is going to become apparent, for they are in danger of being swept off the water because of technological advances. The government has made provision for loans to companies for large draggers and trawlers, and the small fisherman is being pushed out of the picture. But if we can provide the means for him to join with his comrades in the industry in the pooling of their resources through the medium of a credit union, thus enabling them to secure larger boats and fish on a co-operative basis, I think we will meet the problem confronting the shore fishermen at the present time. I seriously suggest to the government that before the bill is finally adopted more consideration should be given to the possibility of including credit unions as lending institutions within the meaning of the legislation.

I wish to refer again to the very excellent speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I can tell those who are interested in the question of credit unions and co-operatives that it is good reading. Every member of the house should have a copy of it. The reason I am referring to it at this time, Mr. Chairman, is to underline the non-partisan attitude that has been taken by members who have spoken on the subject both in the house and outside of it. At page 5 of his speech the minister goes on to deal with the development of credit unions, and I think I will put his words on the record because they are much more eloquent than any words of mine would be.


An hon. Member:: Don't quote too much.


Clarence Gillis: I am trying to get credit unions included. The minister said:
The late Alphonse Desjardins, a Hansard reporter from Levis, founded in the year 1900 the first credit union anywhere in North America.
That should swing around our Quebec members. The idea had its very roots in the province of Quebec. The minister continues:
Today, there are no less than 3,600 credit unions and caisses populaires, having a total membership of close to 1,500,000 people. Many of these credit unions have established provincial co-operative credit societies in order that the service they offer to their members may be more flexible and comprehensive. The co-operative financial structure is strengthened by the existence and growth of cooperatives in the closely related field of insurance.
A few years ago I had the privilege of visiting St. Francis Xavier University at Antigonish, Nova Scotia, an institution which holds an honoured place in the development of the co-operative movement in Canada. At that time I had the opportunity of studying at first hand the bold and far-reaching program of the university's extension department which, under the direction of Dr. M. M. Coady and the late A. B. MacDonald achieved such remarkable results throughout the surrounding countryside.
In the little fishing villages of Nova Scotia and in the mining centres across the straits of Canso in picturesque Cape Breton Island, I saw stores, banks, lobster factories and other community undertakings that had been developed under the guidance of men like Dr. Coady. Professor MacDonald, and the late Reverend Dr. James Tompkins, the beloved "Father Jimmy", whose name will always be associated with the pioneering project in co-operative housing at Tompkinsville, Nova Scotia.
I must say I compliment the minister on the research he did in bringing the story up to date. This speech from which I am quoting was delivered on March 22, 1955, so the statistics are right up to date.
I should like to point out further, Mr. Chairman, that in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned-I think it is equally true of New Brunswick and the west coast-there is hardly a section of the province where this legislation would not be operative if
Fisheries
credit unions were included. For example, many people think of the town of Glace Bay and the cities of Sydney and Halifax as industrial sections. In each of those towns and cities in which there is a credit union functioning, a large percentage of the membership of those credit unions is made up of fishermen, as the minister knows. The town of Glace Bay is looked upon as a mining town, but one of the largest swordfishing industries in the country is located there, in addition to a large fish plant and a fishing fleet.
I know the important problem there is for the shore fishermen to improve their boats and equipment in order to avoid being run off the water by the larger trawlers. By accepting the recommendation that loans be made available to fishermen in this way you are covering the whole country. You would not only be benefiting the fishermen but you would have the backing of every section of Quebec, I believe-at least the Gaspe coast-New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I would certainly suggest, Mr. Chairman, that before the government puts this legislation in final form they give every consideration to amending it so credit unions will be included.
Again, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare points out, taking into consideration the world situation, the uncertainties of our times and the contending philosophies in our society, the crux of this whole threat of communism is contained in what the com- [DOT] munists offer. What are they offering? They are only offering one thing. There is only one attractive part of their appeal; that is when they say, "Give us power over you and in return we will take the land from the landlords and give it to the peasants." Is that not their appeal? What is their appeal to the industrial workers in countries in which there are low wages, poor housing, slums and all the rest of it? Their appeal is when they say, "We will take control from the monopoly; we will decentralize industries, break them up into small blocks and give you, the proletariat, a share in the management and a share in the profits." They never do it, but that is their appeal.
In my judgment the only answer to that appeal is to improve the mechanics of society in this country, and all the free countries, so that every person can have a share in the development of the country. If we permit the fishermen and those associated with them in the credit unions the opportunity of sharing in the development of the resources of the country, then we are distributing to them individual ownership in proportion to the amount of capital they are able to put into

Fisheries
an endeavour through their credit unions. The minister recognized that when he said on page 7 of his speech:
Surely at no time in the world's uneven history has it been more essential for men and nations to foster and to maintain the ideals that have been the inspiration of these co-operative endeavours. In these times, when the godless philosophy of totalitarianism threatens the very foundations of our freedom, we must not lose sight of the vision of all men bound together by ties of understanding and co-operation. For nothing is more needed at this stage in the affairs of men than to bring to the relations between nations an appreciation of the value of co-operation and a recognition of the primacy of human welfare.
That, Mr. Chairman, is what I tried to say a moment ago, but the minister puts it in better language. I suggest that since we have already established a principle in two pieces of legislation, the industrial development bank and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, under which the taxpayers guarantee any risk that may be involved, we should now begin to test the principle enunciated in that speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As yet no member in this house has spoken against the proposal to include credit unions in the bill that is forecast by this resolution. There is a lot of common sense and the necessary machinery in this legislation if the government will get around to doing the sort of thing we are advocating here this evening. I trust that before the bill passes there will be a re-examination of it and the government will consider including credit unions.
If this is done, then for the first time we will be making a test on the national scale of the credit union leagues that exist across the country, buttressed by the Co-operative Credit Associations Act that now has all the legal mechanics to protect any investment that may be made through the medium of this legislation. We should now start to make a test of it, because in my judgment if we are going to retain a free world, a democratic society, then we have to begin giving the ordinary man an opportunity to participate in that democracy.


Mr. Ashbourne:: I do not intend to take up much of the time of this committee, Mr. Chairman, but I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not express, on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland, our sincere appreciation to the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance for the introduction of this measure. In my opinion this measure demonstrates again the great interest of the ministers in the toilers of the deep.
I feel that for too long, Mr. Chairman, the fishing industry has suffered from a lack of capital. While I know there have been

instances of cash loans to fishermen by firms which have been interested in assisting them by providing various means to enlarge their income, there has been a limit to the amount of capital these firms have had available to assist these fishermen. In some cases, owing to the long term of the financing, it has imposed a hardship on the firms which have advanced the capital and has been a means of tying up necessary funds which might be employed in further extending their operations.
It has been said that fishermen are small capitalists. I believe this argument has been advanced as one reason why unemployment insurance has not been extended to them. I should like to point out that generally speaking the incomes of some fishermen are very meagre indeed. It is not easy to build up the necessary resources from their small earnings to undertake the type of fishing we see in this day and generation.
It was my privilege this morning to be present at the opening plenary session of the fifth annual meeting of the international commission on the northwest Atlantic fisheries here in the railway committee room. As I looked around-the Prime Minister was there and addressed the meeting, and the Minister of Fisheries was also in attendance-and saw the ten countries represented at that meeting, I thought of the fishermen, the men who pull the fish out of the water, sometimes pull them out fish by fish, or catch them in their nets. These are the people who will be helped by the bill now before us.
I know this bill will encourage these hardy, industrious producers, and will put new heart in them. It will encourage initiative; because when a man knows that his income will be for himself, and that he does not have to pay a large amount of interest and a large share of the profits for nets and twines, charges that are made to these people who have to depend upon credit, he will realize that by going to the bank and obtaining a loan he can be in a position where he can purchase the necessary supplies including nets, twines and the like, as well as boats and other equipment necessary in his occupation. They can get this equipment more cheaply if they have the cash available with which to make the purchases.
The indemnity insurance, to which reference was made by the Minister of Fisheries, has been of substantial assistance to those engaged in the fishing industry. I know that the provision of loans by the provincial government in Newfoundland has been most helpful in making available some very necessary capital to assist the fishing industry of that province to set up additional plants for

the processing of fresh fish, and to have the industry operate along more modern lines.
This is a worthy beginning; and no doubt as time goes by certain amendments will be forthcoming which will provide additional coverage and additional benefits required by our fishermen. These additional benefits will be of great assistance to the fishermen and will meet other contingencies which may arise.
The standard of living of the fishermen in Newfoundland has improved in recent years. We want to make sure that this improvement is maintained, that there is no retrograde movement, and that as a result of long-term planning, something which is needed in the fishing industry, with additional capital, we shall see further improvements taking place in the matter of fishermen's earnings.
We realize that fishermen from other countries are coming over here to fish our banks -and may I point out that there are banks other than those which make money available for loans. I am thinking of those banks which do not close on Saturdays, of the Grand Banks in particular. Men are out there night and day, and when they go out to the banks they see trawlers from other countries which have come across here to take away fish which we have considered part of our resources. This is particularly true inshore. We know of course that in the waters offshore other countries can engage in fishing.
Only recently we know that Norwegian steamers have been operating off Newfoundland and Labrador, taking seals in considerable numbers. We know, too, that it requires capital to provide sealing steamers, and that it is not within the means of our fishermen, either singly or in groups, to provide sufficient capital to own and outfit steamers to go to the seal fishery. However, we do know there are some who go from Newfoundland, and that the fishermen who go out in these vessels, and engage in the dangerous occupation of catching seals, see fishermen from other countries coming in there with their ships. It is our belief that money should be provided so that our fishermen can engage in this occupation in a bigger way.
This resolution is a step in that direction. It will mean further expansion of the fishing industry, and I hope an improvement in the Canadian economy.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Chairman, representing a district to which fishing is of vital concern to a large portion of the population, may I add my voice to those who have congratulated the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries upon their joint effort in bringing forward this most welcome piece
Fisheries
of legislation. In saying this I know I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues from Quebec who represent other fishing centres in that province.
May I remind the committee that this measure follows closely one no less progressive introduced two years ago by the Minister of Fisheries, and which has been of immense value to our fishermen. I am referring of course to the fishermen's indemnity plan.
I do not wish to delay unduly the adoption of this resolution, and shall take only a few moments to offer two suggestions. The first of these has to do with the regulations to be made under the provisions of the proposed legislation. My suggestion is that these regulations be so made as to render the provisions of the act applicable to as many fishermen as possible.
Second, may I impress upon the minister the importance of the suggestion already advanced by some hon. members to the effect that credit unions or, as we call them in our province, les caisses populaires, be added to the banks as recognized lending institutions under the proposed legislation. In doing this not only would we be recognizing once again these most deserving institutions, but at the same time we would be providing more outlets where our fishermen could obtain loans, because these credit unions have branches serving the most remote fishing areas in Quebec.
I know the minister will give his earnest attention to these two suggestions. Once again on behalf of our fishermen I wish to thank him for the two progressive measures I have mentioned, particularly the one now before us.


Mr. Cannon:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this resolution this evening, but when I heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South suggest that the scope of the legislation be enlarged to include credit unions I decided that I should put in a word to support his suggestion in the interests of my constituency of the Magdalen islands.
Unfortunately in the Magdalen islands we have but one bank, and it is not very generous when it comes to lending money. Therefore it would be very much in the interests of the fishermen of the Magdalen islands if the legislation were enlarged to include the credit unions, or the caisses populaires, as they are called in our province.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries on having introduced this very important piece of legislation. I do this particularly because it is another step in the direction I have

Fisheries
often suggested the government should take. Both the agricultural primary producers and the fisheries primary producers should be placed on the same footing. Gradually the very generous legislation that we have enacted so far to help the farmers, and particularly the farmers of the west, is being extended to the fishermen, and I welcome this new legislation as another step in that direction.
It will be particularly useful in the Magdalen islands because there a transition is taking place from inshore fishing in small boats to offshore fishing in larger boats. It takes some capital to build the larger boats. Although the federal government gives a grant of $165 a ton to build those boats, the men are not able to get the capital needed. Though they get help from the provincial and federal governments, they still do not get enough. At the present time there are only two or three of these larger boats fishing around the Magdalen islands. I hope this new legislation will permit the fishermen to borrow money and get the capital they need to build these larger boats during the transition from the small inshore fishing boats to the larger offshore fishing boats, and that this step will be accelerated in the interests of the fishing industry and of the inhabitants of the Magdalen islands.
Something was said about the standard of living in Newfoundland. It is improving. Well, the same thing can be said of the standard of living in the Magdalen islands. If we really wish to bring it up to the standard of living in the rest of the country we have to give more and more help to the fishermen. The step the government is taking is most welcome, and it will do a lot of good in my constituency.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my voice to what appears to be a rising chorus on the part of hon. members suggesting the desirability of the government considering the possibility of bringing the credit union movement within the provisions of the proposed legislation. I know I need not remind the Minister of Fisheries of the large part the credit union movement has played in the life of the fisherman on the British Columbia coast, and how important it is to him. As I have listened to those who have taken part in the debate it has become obvious to me that this applies equally, if not to an even greater degree, to the fishermen on the Atlantic coast of this country.
I have not at hand a speech by a cabinet minister, at least of the kind I would like to quote from. I would not mind if I had another one like the one the hon. member for

Cape Breton South used. If I had I would be glad to quote from it. However, I should like to suggest to the Minister of Fisheries a way in which he could co-operate with those of us who have spoken on this question previously and who have indicated our general interest in the measure as well as our interest in particular aspects of fishermen's finances.
I was glad to know that the Minister of Fisheries was able to persuade his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to permit him to lead off on this resolution. I have been wondering whether the Minister of Fisheries could not arrange that after second reading the bill be referred to the marine and fisheries committee. If that were done, perhaps we could get the Minister of Finance and his high finance colleagues into that committee and have a real session on the ins and outs of the measure, and get down to the practical points that have been raised. I know the Minister of Fisheries will recall that recently he himself appeared before a committee under the chairmanship of one of his other colleagues. I refer to the industrial relations committee. As a member of that committee I felt that it was a very successful venture. Possibly we could have a repeat performance of that kind on this measure, with his colleague the Minister of Finance present before the marine and fisheries committee.
Before I take my seat may I say that I have had a bit of personal experience with the credit union movement, enough to realize that if they were brought within the provisions of this type of legislation the risks to the taxpayers of Canada would not be greatly increased thereby. At one time I was treasurer of a small credit union in its early days. At that time that little credit union had lent a total of something over $50,000. During that time all that was written off as bad debts was the sum of $37.50. Over half of that amount had actually been written off on compassionate grounds. We should indicate to the fishermen that when parliament introduces a measure to assist them in financing to equip themselves to meet the changing conditions of their industry, which require improved equipment, we at the same time recognize the fact that in the credit union movement there is a very important organization that can assist them in financing their lifetime vocation.
I am glad to know that the bill is to apply only to those who are considered bona fide commercial fishermen. As far as British Columbia is concerned, at the present time I do not think any of us who are at all familiar with the fishing industry would want to have it otherwise. I do feel that an overwhelming

majority of the bona fide commercial fishermen in British Columbia would heartily support the inclusion of the credit union movement as such in the provisions of this legislation.


Mr. Kickham:: I wish to commend the Minister of Fisheries on introducing this legislation to the house, because I think fishermen are entitled to legislation similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This resolution forecasts very necessary legislation which the minister will bring in. As the minister suggested today, it is the beginning. After experience is gained from this initial legislation the minister will be in a position to bring amendments before the house from time to time.
I believe I am correct in saying, Mr. Chairman, that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act security is not taken on real estate but only on farm equipment, such as tractors. The chartered banks, I believe, take the bill of sale, which is the security the farmer provides for the loan that is given through the bank under the act. I should like to see this legislation extended so that real estate could be taken into consideration in the case of fishermen.
In our province of Prince Edward Island, in the past, assistance has been granted to fishermen for the construction of new boats, the purchase of boats, whether new or second hand, or the purchase of equipment such as engines, trawls, nets, and other equipment the fisherman needs for the small inshore boats. Within the last three years this assistance, given through our department of industry and natural resources, has also been extended for purchases of drag nets.
This department of industry and natural resources in our province has set up what is known as a fishermen's loan board. The applicant fisherman sends his application to this board for review, for rejection or approval as it may see fit. The loan board has done an excellent job for the fishermen in our province. I am very pleased to see that our draggers in the province of Prince Edward Island are doing exceptionally well. Last year our provincial government under Premier Matheson's administration passed legislation setting up what is known as the industrial assistance act, which gives assistance to processors of up to 50 per cent of their initial cost of constructing plants and the equipment necessary for the processing of the product.
Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who has just spoken, I myself was at one time treasurer of the credit union. I have always been greatly interested in fishermen's
Fisheries
and farm co-operatives. I should like to offer the suggestion to the minister that credit unions should be included as a loaning agency, as well as the chartered banks. I do not believe that our credit unions in Prince Edward Island at this time figure very largely in loans to fishermen. I repeat what I have already said, that the greater number of our loans to fishermen are granted through the fishermen's loan board under the department of industry and natural resources. Perhaps the minister would consider that suggestion and also include credit unions. I believe in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island they figure quite largely as agencies for providing loans for inshore boats and draggers.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, like the other hon. members who have spoken I shall be brief. I should like to assure the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance that this legislation will be welcomed by the fishermen on both coast lines, and perhaps to the same extent in the central part of our country. For a great many years several members in this chamber representing fishing constituencies have recommended insurance for equipment, and we now see that legislation on our statute books. We have also asked for loans to fishermen which I believe should have been considered before this time. I have always felt that all primary producers should be placed in the same category. Nevertheless we welcome it, and we wish to thank those responsible for the legislation coming forward at this time.
There is just one pessimistic note I have to express. I fear that fishermen may take it for granted that this legislation will take in more territory than it is planned to take in. I also fear that at least a small percentage of the fishermen may not qualify for loans, and there will be disappointment. Nevertheless it is a step in the right direction, and I hope it will provide the assistance we believe it will provide.
The fishermen's insurance plan which was introduced two years ago included at the outset lobster traps only. It has been broadened since that time, and now includes other equipment. This legislation, I have no doubt, was designed the same way. It is entering a new field and we must move cautiously. I would hope that in the future the legislation would be broadened so it would be perhaps of greater help to a greater number.
It has been mentioned tonight by other hon. members that the co-operatives and
credit unions should be included. No doubt when we come back at another session that matter will be considered if not at this time,

Fisheries
and I believe it will receive the support of all the members representing fishing ridings.
I can only say in conclusion that I do appreciate what the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance have accomplished. I wish them well, and I know that fishermen who will benefit by this legislation will have a warm place in their hearts for these gentlemen.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to detain the committee at this stage, but I was not able to be in the house earlier this afternoon, and I wish to say a word with respect to this legislation. The proposed bill will undoubtedly be a great improvement in connection with the extension of credit to fishermen. I want to express to the minister the hope that this legislation will go far enough so the position of our fishermen as primary producers will be as closely as possible equal to that of primary producers in the agricultural areas, in connection with securing the credit they need to improve their lot.
Farmers and fishermen require credit to improve and extend their operations, just as business and industry require credit for the same purposes. Undoubtedly the essential consideration in connection with legislation of this kind is to extend credit where required for the actual operations of the individual fisherman.
I think we should keep in mind as well that there are credit facilities available to the agricultural sections of the community for other purposes which are second only in importance to the primary purpose which I have already mentioned. No one denies the importance to rural life of improved living conditions. One can point to the provision of electricity, the labour-saving domestic and other appliances which come in its wake and the provision of running water and modern plumbing, to mention only two things. Life in the fishing towns and villages can be improved in exactly the same way; and it is just as important for the future development of this essential primary industry to see that the people engaged in fishing have the same facilities to secure these improvements for themselves as have the farmers. If this legislation does not in the first instance go far enough to achieve this end completely, I hope the Department of Finance and the Department of Fisheries will give further consideration to the matter and try to work out some method of improving the legislation.
The question of credit unions being regarded as financial institutions for the purpose of this legislation is important, but it is not really connected with the primary
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1
purpose and intent of the legislation. However, I think it is correct to point out to the minister that if credit unions are not regarded as financial institutions under this act there is a real possibility that the act will not be as useful and valuable as it otherwise would be. There is no question but that the credit unions in the past-and in the recent past, I may say-have carried the burden so far as extending credit to the fishermen is concerned, apart from the old-fashioned system of co-operation given the fishermen by the merchants who deal in their products.
The credit unions have done, I believe, an outstanding job in this connection, particularly in the maritimes. I think they have to their credit achievements that deserve encouragement rather than what seems to them some sort of discrimination. The credit unions in the maritimes provinces have an excellent record. As was pointed out by my colleague from the Magdalen islands, they provide facilities in many areas which are not served by the banks. The banks simply cannot be expected to keep branches in many of the small fishing villages which are remote and not too easy of access. So far as this legislation is concerned, I am afraid we shall find that its value may be somewhat dissipated by the inability or unwillingness of fishermen who need credit to make the journey that would be required to reach a bank and establish the banking relationships they would need.
Because of the previous representations made in connection with this matter I understand that there are some problems and difficulties in connection with the administrative situation which would result if credit unions were brought under this act. If that is correct, and if those difficulties are substantial and real, I would urge the minister to try to see to it that the problem is approached not from the point of view of putting up those difficulties as such but from the point of view of trying to see if the credit unions cannot be encouraged and given the direction and assistance which will make it possible for them to get their arrangements in such order that they will be brought under this act and will be financial institutions for this purpose.
I submit to the minister that the value of this act will be greatly enhanced, and that it will be made more valuable to the people who really need it, if that sort of approach is taken.


Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the committee unduly on this resolution, but I want to associate myself with other hon. members

Fisheries
who have congratulated the government, and particularly the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance, on introducing this legislation which will undoubtedly be of great benefit to fishermen across Canada.
With a good deal of what has already been said by the hon. members who have preceded me, I am in accord. I am therefore not going to waste time by repeating what they have said. However, I want to stress one point which I think has been mentioned by most of the other members who have spoken, namely the matter of bringing the credit unions into the picture.
It so happens that the head office of the Nova Scotia credit union league is in Anti-gonish, which is the shire town in my constituency. There are also many branch offices throughout the constituency. When this legislation was mooted it was not long, as you can well imagine, before I had a telegram from Antigonish. I do not think it will do any harm to put it on the record. It reads as follows:
Antigonish, Nova Scotia,
May 31, 1955.
Ralph Kirk, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Fishermen of Nova Scotia will be sorely disappointed if their credit unions are not included with chartered banks as agencies to provide government guaranteed loans to fishermen for boats and equipment under new legislation being introduced by the Minister of Finance.
It is signed by the Nova Scotia co-operative union. That telegram was closely followed by a letter from the managing director of the Nova Scotia credit union league. I do not think it is worth while to read all the letter because the first part of it has been dealt with by others who have spoken. However, there is one little part that I do not recall having been mentioned by other hon. members, and of which I think it would be worth while for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries to take note. That part reads as follows:
Now that legislation is being proposed to assist the fishermen financially, we feel strongly that our credit unions should have the same opportunity of providing credit to fishermen as our chartered banks, especially in view of the fact that our *credit unions have been doing this business, and even more so, because of the fact that many of our credit unions are completely fishermen owned and operated.
The paragraph of which I think particular notice should be taken is the one I am now going to read:
There is also the consideration that in most of our credit unions there is a loan protection insurance contract which insures that upon the death or the total and permanent disability of a borrower, the loan is paid off. This would decrease to some extent the risk that the government would be
taking in guaranteeing such loans through credit unions, as losses because of death or disability would be made good by the insurance company and not the local organization or the government.
That is one part of the argument of the Nova Scotia credit union league that I want to draw particularly to the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries.
As I said when I started, I do not want to delay unduly the passing of this legislation. Enough has already been said-and, in my opinion, well said-by every hon. member who has spoken, regardless of politics. I shall conclude by saying that I sincerely hope the government, and the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance, will consider seriously the requests that have been made by the credit unions through all the members of the House of Commons who have been addressing themselves tonight to this subject.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall detain the committee for only a few minutes, but I do want to say a word or two on this matter. The constituency I represent is of course better known as an agricultural area, but it is a fact that we do have considerable fresh water fishing. As a matter of fact the nationally famous lake Winnipeg goldeye comes from some of the lakes in my constituency, which are quite a long way from Winnipeg.
I want to ask the minister a couple of questions, but before I do so may I say that I agree wholeheartedly with the stand taken by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his very well developed plea for the inclusion of credit unions as lending institutions under the proposed legislation. Like the hon. member I am a strong believer in co-operation as a way of life, and I think it would be most appropriate if credit unions were included in the legislation to be presented.
I should like to ask the minister first of all what is included in the term "primary fishing enterprise". My second question has to do with Indian reserves. It may be that Indian fishermen living on reserves are treated in exactly the same way as anybody else under the legislation. If that is the case, that is fine; but if there is to be any differentiation I should like to hear what it is and what opportunities there will be for Indians living on reserves to participate in the plan. One of the chief difficulties is the fact that most fishermen of that type have very little collateral when it comes to applying for a loan. I hope the effect of the legislation will be such that it will not be too difficult for the individual fisherman with not too much collateral to

Fisheries
obtain a loan, or that some method may be found for several fishermen to pool their resources on a co-operative basis so they can obtain a loan to buy a boat and the necessary equipment.
One of the chief complaints among the Indian population on reserves, and some off reserves, is the fact that they find themselves unable to purchase the equipment they require, and as a result they end up working for a fish company which employs them and pays them wages sufficient to enable them to keep going. It seems impossible for them to scrape together enough to obtain the necessary equipment and become fishermen on their own. I hope there will be something in the legislation to make it a little easier for such persons to participate and eventually own their own equipment and become fishermen in their own right.
The reason I have asked the meaning of the words "primary fishing enterprise" is so that it may be clearly set out what individuals, companies or co-operatives may participate, and just what limitation there may be on that phrase.
(Translation) :


Mr. Legare:: Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in congratulating the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) for introducing legislation that will allow fishermen to borrow from the bank for the improvement of their fishing gear and boats. This decision will most certainly be greeted with a great deal of pleasure by all those who earn their living by fishing.
Nevertheless I would like to join the hon. members for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) and the Magdalen islands (Mr. Cannon) in asking the ministers concerned to include credit unions in this proposed legislation, so that they may be authorized to lend money as well as the banks.
The achievements of credit unions in Quebec cannot be overemphasized. I am convinced those unions would be only too glad to help the fishermen as they have already helped our workers and farmers in other ways.
The Quebec credit unions have already helped thousands of people to build homes and they would only be too happy to help the fishermen.
I hope that the sponsors of this resolution will see their way clear to include the credit unions as approved lending institutions in the proposed legislation.
(Text) :


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly very heartening to have such unanimous

endorsement for this legislation by members of all parties from fishing areas in every part of the country. I think most members understand that this legislation is a start in a new field, and because it is a start it cannot be as all-embracing as the Farm Improvement Loans Act now is after some years of experience. This is, after all, the resolution stage, when the general principle of the bill to come is discussed. I have made a note of all the questions asked by hon. members and am quite prepared to answer them in detail, but I think almost all of them, with one or two notable exceptions, will be answered when hon. members get the bill tomorrow morning.
The hon. member for Dauphin asked a key question, as to what is a primary fishing enterprise. Roughly it is the actual act of an individual fisherman catching fish, but not processing it in any way at all. The legislation is limited to loans to individual fishermen, not to partnerships, companies or co-operatives. In that respect it is similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The position of Indians is not covered. Of course Indians on a reserve are very different from Indians off a reserve, who are ordinary citizens. Indians on a reserve cannot be sued if they are in default on a loan. I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has a fund in his department for making direct loans to fishermen on reserves for fishing equipment. As far as the fish companies are concerned, I know the fish companies operating on the Skeena river have over $600,000 outstanding at the present time in loans to Indian fishermen.
The other notable thing about this debate has been the very warm and sincere tribute again paid by members of all parties to the tremendous work done by the credit union societies in this country. It may be true that the first credit union was founded in Quebec many years ago, but as far as the fishermen of Canada are concerned the real father of the credit union movement in Canada is that wonderful little university in Antigonish, St. Francis Xavier, which, during the very darkest days of the depression, taught the fishermen how to help themselves by pooling then-scanty savings and using that money for their own benefit. The way the credit union movement has grown across the maritimes, in the Gaspe and Saguenay areas of Quebec, in the fishing areas of the inland lakes and out to the west coast, is quite remarkable.
The problem involved here with respect to the inclusion of the credit unions is one-which comes very close to people from every

fishing area. Hon. members will recall that during the tour years I was assistant to the Minister of Finance I twice piloted the Farm Improvement Loans Act through the house, at which time the same request was made to include the credit unions as lending institutions under the act. My recollection of the answers given then is that first of all there was the difficulty of control. The eleven chartered banks are under direct control by the Department of Finance, under regular inspection by the inspector general of banks, and of course they operate under the Bank Act which is reviewed every ten years by the federal government.
Therefore in guaranteeing loans to the chartered banks we have the knowledge that we have very close control over the uses we are making of the taxpayers' money. On the other hand, there are many hundreds of credit unions across the country which are not under federal control but under varying types of provincial legislation. We have no way, without intruding in the provincial field, of inspecting the facilities and management of these credit unions. I do not think it is reflecting on the credit union movement at all to^say that credit unions are not quite as stable as chartered banks. Occasionally credit unions do get into financial trouble.
The second reason I recall was the fact that the type of security which must be taken to protect the taxpayers' money under this kind of legislation is in general a little different from that required by the credit union associations themselves. There is, perhaps, one point which has been missed. When the government encourages the banks to go into what is the riskiest part of fishermen's credit, that is loans based on their fishing gear and their fishing vessels, they are taking the most difficult borrowing and the borrowing on which there is the highest expectancy of loss off the shoulders of the credit unions. This leaves the credit unions free to devote their funds to the other credit needs of the fishermen, the sort of thing mentioned by the two members for Halifax, the improvement of the fisherman's home, the electrification of his home and things like that.
However, the credit union movement is even closer and more important to the fishermen of this country than are the credit unions of the farmers. I say that without any sense of disparagement of the latter. The fishermen of the maritimes especially are genuinely attached to these institutions which did so much for them in the days of the depression.
I had a word with the Prime Minister just now, and he has accepted a suggestion made
Prisons and Reformatories Act in the speeches by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, and repeated later by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that this resolution be regarded, as it really is, as a warning of a bill that is coming.
When the bill is before the house and is given second reading it is to be referred to a committee of the house. As Minister of Fisheries I do not think the committee on marine and fisheries is the proper committee to which to refer it, because this is a financial bill and the difficulties of including credit unions are financial ones. It will be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. The same procedure will be followed as was followed when unemployment insurance for fishermen was discussed before the industrial relations committee. Those members from fishing areas can attend and ask questions.
We will have this meeting some time next week, after due warning so that as well as the members concerned the representatives of these various credit union societies, including the national society to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred, can come here and state their case. They can show what guarantees they can give if the taxpayers' money is put forward as a guarantee to them. They can show whether it will be safeguarded in a manner equally satisfactory to the safeguards offered by the chartered banks.
I believe that covers the points.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Sinclair thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 452, respecting loans to assist fishermen engaged in a primary fishing enterprise.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 381, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister going to give an explanation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is concerned with the care of prisoners in the provincial jails of New Brunswick, and is before the house at the present time because the government of New Brunswick has asked that it be passed. This bill is an example

Prisons and Reformatories Act of the type and degree of legislative co-operation that must take place between the federal parliament and government on the one hand, and provincial legislatures and governments on the other in order that provision may be made for the care of prisoners who are convicted under the Criminal Code and sentenced to periods of less than two years in provincial institutions. I think, perhaps, for the benefit at least of the newer members of the house I should give the references to the relevant articles of our constitution in order to make clear why what would appear to be a provincial matter Is being taken care of in the parliament of Canada.
Under head 14 of section 92 of the British North America Act, provincial legislatures may exclusively make laws in relation to the administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction and including procedure in civil matters in those courts. But so far as the procedure in criminal matters is concerned, under head 27 of section 91 of the British North America Act, the parliament of Canada has exclusive authority in respect of the criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.
Then, head 28 of section 91 aforesaid gives parliament exclusive legislative jurisdiction in relation to the establishment, management and maintenance of penitentiaries. Authority over provincial jails on the other hand rests with the provincial legislatures, under head 6 of section 92.
Now, parliament has provided in section 634 of the Criminal Code that a person who is sentenced under an act of the parliament of Canada, which, of course, would include the Criminal Code, to imprisonment for life or for a term of two years or more shall be sentenced to the penitentiary designated for the province in which he was convicted. A person who is sentenced under such an act to imprisonment for a term of less than two years is required to be sentenced to imprisonment in a place other than a penitentiary, which is one way of saying in a provincial institution.
But it is not enough, and this is really the point of the necessity for this present legislation, for the Criminal Code or any other act of the parliament of Canada to provide that a person who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for less than two years will go to a place of confinement other than a penitentiary. It is necessary for us in this parliament to make provision for the courts to commit such

persons to provincial institutions and ten authorize the keeper of such institutions to detain them in lawful custody therein. Then, of course, we must make provision in this legislation for such things as the transfer of prisoners, the release of prisoners and so on, in the same manner as is done under the penitentiaries act in relation to federal institutions. All these matters relating to provincial institutions are contained in a federal act called the Prisons and Reformatories Act which it is the purpose of the present bill to amend.
This Prisons and Reformatories Act sets, forth procedures which shall be adopted in relation to prisoners who have been sentenced for a period of less than two years to provincial institutions including special reform schools, reformatories, industrial farms or industrial schools and the like. If hon. members examine this Prisons and Reformatories Act they will see that, first of all, there is a general part dealing with matters of general application in all the provinces. Then, in relation to each of the provinces there is a separate part of the act dealing with institutions in that particular province. The part we are concerned with in the present case is part V, dealing with the province of New Brunswick.
As I have said we were asked by the attorney general of New Brunswick, Hon. Mr. West, to bring in this legislation. Permit me, sir, to quote from Hon. Mr. West's letter in this connection, as follows:
This province is in the course of modernizing its penal system. We plan on erecting a central penal institution to be known as the New Brunswick central reformatory and it is hoped that the institution will be ready for partial occupancy, at least, during the latter part of this year.
The province is also assuming regulation of the county gaols, and in some cases, is closing existing county gaols which are insecure or which, for other reasons such as health and safety, it is considered undesirable to keep open.
In order to carry out these plans it will be necessary to have authority to transfer prisoners sentenced to gaol from a county gaol to the central reformatory and in some cases from one county gaol to another. This, of course, cannot be done in cases of prisoners sentenced under the Criminal Code or other federal statutes without legislative authority.
I am attaching hereto a draft of a proposed amendment to the Prisons and Reformatories Act. This draft is patterned on similar provisions now contained in the Prisons and Reformatories Act with respect to the provinces of Ontario and Alberta. For your convenience, I have noted at the end of each section of the draft the comparable provision or provisions now contained in the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Our plans cannot, of course, be put into operation with respect to prisoners confined under federal statutes without some legislation of this nature. A large majority of prisoners in our gaols are sentenced under a federal statute. It will be

greatly appreciated if legislation along the lines of attached draft is passed at the current session of parliament.
Upon receipt of this letter a bill in the terms hon. members now see before them was drawn up by parliamentary counsel and resubmitted to the attorney general of New Brunswick. He approved of it. It is now before hon. members for consideration.
This bill first deals with this New Brunswick central reformatory, which we understand will be a modem type of institution where up to date principles of penology are applied with a view to effecting the rehabilitation and reform of inmates.
The second main purpose of the bill is to vest authority in a parole board, provincially appointed, to release inmates of the boys' industrial home upon parole at any time during their confinement, under conditions approved by the federal Minister of Justice. This boys' industrial home is an institution specially designed in the province of New Brunswick for the custody, care and treatment of juveniles-that is, boys under the age of 16 years-who are convicted of offences under the criminal law. It is located at Bay-side drive in Saint John, New Brunswick. It was first opened in 1893 and has a normal capacity of 60.
The purpose of the present amendment is to provide that where the inmates of this reform school for boys are now released under ticket of leave by the remissions branch of the Department of Justice they will, in future, be released by a provincial parole board in the same manner as they are now being released from similar institutions in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia by similar provincial parole boards.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, as has been comprehensively stated by the minister, this legislation comes from the Senate and is being presented at the request of the attorney general of New Brunswick. The minister mentioned briefly this year, and also last year, that it has been his pleasure to have considerable co-operation among the attorneys general of the various provinces and his own department with respect to legislation of this kind.
We in New Brunswick are in the process of modernizing our penal institutions. I suppose one might say that we are reforming our reformatories. The situation which obtained a few years ago was most serious, and we thought it necessary to appoint a commission to look into the situation surrounding our jails and penal institutions in the province. For this purpose we selected Judge J. Bacon Dickson of Fredericton, a very competent
Prisons and Reformatories Act jurist. Various other prominent and interested citizens served on the commission. They made a complete survey and study of the situation in the province and, after some time, brought out what is commonly known down our way as the Dickson report.
Among other things this report outlines the need for inspectors in our jails, and the suggestion was made that we take over the old jails. They went further and suggested an amalgamation of some of the county jails, and a general comprehensive survey was made with respect to the classification and segregation of criminals.
As I have said, this legislation is the result of our plans to gradually implement the Dickson report. The minister has outlined very carefully why legislation of this kind must come through the federal parliament. It is well known that section 91 of the British North America Act gives the federal authority the right to legislate in the matter of criminal law. Our criminal courts are excepted in that general classification. Further, for various reasons it has been necessary to have other institutions in our provinces under the control of the provinces, with the exception of federal penitentiaries. I understand that is why it is necessary, in view of the fact that the Criminal Code and some other criminal legislation is under federal jurisdiction, to have authority from the federal parliament to deal with various smaller phases of activity distinguished from the federal penitentiaries.
This bill, from the other place, has two main themes. First of all it purports to give some sort of authority to a New Brunswick central reformatory. This is in line with the Dickson report which, as I said, we are trying to implement. Further suggestions with respect to our county jails are also met to some extent under this legislation.
The second proposal in the bill concerns the boys' industrial home. A change has been made in the name of this home. Whereas it was known formerly as the industrial home for boys, it is now known as the boys' industrial home. Certain parole rights are given to the parole officers in connection with this institution, and there are some other minor changes in connection with the management of the home.
My understanding of this legislation is that no remission privileges are given to the provincial institutions except the remission powers that may be in the hands of the parole officers when they are dealing with matters affecting only their own institutions. In other words, remission rights are still in the hands of the federal government with respect to those who are sentenced to federal penitentiaries.
4480	HOUSE OF
Prisons and Reformatories Act
The minister has made careful reference to the boys' industrial home, which is in East Saint John, in my constituency. Let me say that this institution has been increasing in its importance. We are proud of the fact that we have modernized our staff and our procedure in keeping up with the requirements of corrective reform measures in our institutions.
This home, which contains the lesser criminals under 16 years of age, who are there for various corrective measures-and they number about 50 or 60-has a very fine reputation in our community for the interest shown both in agriculture and in athletics. They have built up quite a farm. They have not only a cattle farm but mixed farming as well, and they have been able to supplement to some extent the revenue of the home and also give the boys a very interesting occupation and help them with their plans when they are released. They have taken a very commendable and worth-while part in athletics along with boys of their own age in the community. When I was younger, going to school and playing hockey, the team we could never seem to beat was composed of the boys from the industrial home in East Saint John. On a later occasion I had a great deal of pleasure in getting acquainted with those boys and talking about those hockey games, which were conducted on a highly competitive basis. Of course no consideration was given to the fact that these boys came from the home. Their sportsmanship was highly appreciated in every way.
We have made quite an effort recently to interest various local retired sportsmen, who were connected with baseball and hockey, in taking part in sports at the school. Just the other day when I was home I was speaking to Gordon Drillon, who used to play hockey for Toronto Maple Leafs. He is employed at the home and is tremendously popular with the boys. He is, of course, a sort of local hero. He is teaching them athletics and is very well liked. This will give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of the interest and effort we are taking in the boys at the school.
As has been stated by the minister, this legislation does grant certain powers. It enables us to correct our field institution along lines which I understand have been completely implemented in Ontario. Alberta and British Columbia have also started in this direction. The legislation that is up for second reading tonight is in line, if not on all fours, with sections of the Prisons and Reformatories Act which is now in force, various parts of which apply to the provinces.
In closing I should like to say we are hopeful that we shall be able to completely implement the Dickson report, which purports to
[Mr. Bell.l

correct our penal and reform institutions in the province. We are pleased to get the cooperation that has been given by the Department of Justice and the minister in meeting our demands in this respect.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that within the past few years there has been a growing interest in all the provinces of Canada and in the federal government in the question of criminality, its cause and its cure. There has been a growing interest shown by governments not only in the cause of criminality but in the methods used in our penal institutions, and most certainly it is all very much to the good. It has been evidenced in particular in the past two or three years by the federal government in the various commissions they have established to look into the matters of capital and corporal punishment, the use of the lash and the paddle, the question of parole and of the rights of prisoners in the penal institutions. As I say, that is all to the good.
This evening we have before us legislation at the request of the province of New Brunswick. The attorney general stated in the letter which has just been quoted that they are in the process of modernizing the penal system in that province. It is to be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this interest in modern penology will extend to the treatment, the education and the rehabilitation processes that are used in our penal institutions, and that the interest will continue, with even a greater study of the causes of crime, especially amongst youthful offenders.
As hon. members know, it has been my privilege for some 18 months now to be a member of the special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which is investigating the questions of capital and corporal punishment and lotteries. Unfortunately our report is not yet in, but all the evidence has been published. There has been some evidence dealing with the start of criminality. The evidence has shown that very often it starts in youth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member just to ask him not to refer to that evidence because, even if it has been printed and distributed, as far as this house is concerned we do not know about it since it has not yet been reported.


Harold Edward Winch: I was not going to discuss the proceedings of the committee at all but just the matter of youthful criminality, which I felt was absolutely in order. This legislation deals with the establishment, the operation and the regulation of a boys' industrial

school, and a boys' industrial school, naturally, contains boys who have broken the law.
I was merely commenting, Mr. Speaker, that we now have, in the words of the attorney general of New Brunswick, a recommendation to the Minister of Justice and from the Minister of Justice to this house, to modernize the methods of handling those boys who have broken the law. I was hoping that this approach would be carried on to include the causation that made these boys break the law. I was pointing out that there is evidence-may I put it that way-that they start young and the cause is environment. However, I am not going into that in detail. It was just an impression I wanted to give, and I am certain the Minister of Justice agrees with me. I am sure he hopes that all the provinces and his own department will carry on a modern study of the causes of criminality.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a principle in this bill which I will not say intrigues me, but which I find disturbing. I know it is in effect in one or two other provinces. When this bill gets into committee of the whole I hope the Minister of Justice will go into some detail and explain the principle. The principle in the bill is that a youth under the age of 16 can be imprisoned on a charge in accordance with the laws of the province and of the dominion.
In addition he may have a second sentence imposed upon him on completion of the sentence under which he has been charged. In other words there is the principle in the act, as far as boys under 16 are concerned, that there are two sentences for one offence. The entire principle is contained in more than one clause but it is evident, because the powers are asked, that if a youth is charged with an offence under the Criminal Code he can be sentenced in the same way as an adult who has committed that offence, and he can get a sentence the same as that which would be given to an adult.
Under this act, if he was under the age of 16 1 take it that he would be committed to the boys' industrial home, but the principle is also stated here that, in the discretion of a supreme court or county court judge, following the completion of his sentence he can then, on account of the offence for which he was found guilty, be given a further indeterminate sentence and retained in the institution for a period not to exceed a total of five years.
This applies not only to an offence under the Criminal Code but also to an offence for which the youth is found guilty on a summary conviction. If he is found guilty under
6,	1955
Prisons and Reformatories Act summary conviction, as long as his sentence is not less than 14 days, then a judge of the supreme court or county court has the power to impose a new sentence after he has completed the sentence for the offence for which he was found guilty, and keep him in the institution for an indeterminate length of time not to exceed the sum total of five years. There must be a good reason for that principle, but I admit that I have been for some time, and am now, a little disturbed as to the justice of it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that if he were to read the section aloud and slowly the reason for the incarceration for the indefinite period would emerge.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have read it aloud and slowly, I have read it to myself slowly and often, and I know what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says is correct. The reasons they can do it are mentioned there. I am speaking about the fact that they can do it on one charge. After the youth has completed the sentence for the offence, then the judge has the power to keep him in the institution perhaps for another four or four and a half years. I am asking about the justice of doing that without two separate charges. If a youth under 16 has committed an offence, and has served his time, he should be released. But if he is still a bad boy, then perhaps the youth should be charged as as incorrigible by his parents or a welfare agency, or children's aid or some agency of government. I am just asking about the justice of this dual sentence. I must admit I find it a little disturbing from that point of view, even though I know the reasons for it. I sincerely hope we can have some detailed explanation from the Minister of Justice on that aspect of the principle of this bill when the house is in committee of the whole.
That is all I wish to say at this stage, Mr. Speaker. I am certain that I would join with others in saying that we welcome this as an advance in the system of penology in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put myself on record as being in favour of this legislation. The ground has been fairly well covered. Since New Brunswick is endeavouring to do what it hopes will be a good job, I do not think we need fear too much the clause in the act about the additional imprisonment. Anyone who has had much experience with boys knows there are times when it is necessary to give the judge or magistrate this power. It is something which I believe is
4462	HOUSE OF
Prisons and Reformatories Act desirable, especially in view of the fact that our courts are well looked after. Our judges are men of experience and we feel safe in their hands; and the system of appointing magistrates has been to confine the appointments to lawyers with considerable experience.
Therefore I just want to add that this bill gives our province an opportunity to bring in a reform which has been much needed for some time, especially with regard to jails. As recommended by Judge Dickson, since our jails in New Brunswick have become quite dilapidated and conditions have been quite bad, it was very important that something be done. In view of that fact I am very glad to see this bill before the house. I hope it will receive the sympathetic consideration of all hon. members.
As far as the principle in the act is concerned, I do not believe it is one which need give any cause for worry. I recently had the opportunity of meeting the new superintendent who will be in charge of this reform institution. He is a man whose name, by the way, came before the committee which my hon. friend who was speaking a few moments ago mentioned, and he is very highly recommended. We look forward to a real improvement in our province.

I might say to my hon. friend that there are some small towns there which have no juvenile courts, no social workers or welfare clubs, and no one to look after these youths. It is much better to have a provision in case the judge feels that a short sentence followed by an indeterminate sentence may meet the situation, so the offender will be left in the hands of youth officials who will let him out of control at the earliest possible moment and keep an eye on him, if they feel he is not likely to become a menace to the community. I believe the principle is not a vicious one; I feel it is a good one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Progress reported.

James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the order of business given on Friday night. If we complete that business we shall then take second reading of Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act. If we finish that, we shall then take any other bills that are on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 7, 1955