1955-07-23

Mr. Barnett:: 1.	How many Indians are resident of (a) Fort Babine reserve; (b) Old Fort reserve, at Babine lake, British Columbia?
2.	How many residents of each of these reserves have died since September, 1954?
3.	What were the causes of death of the Indians who died on each of these reserves?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	(a) 285; (b) 204.
2.	Old Fort reserve-2; Fort Babine reserve -6.
3.	Causes of death at Old Fort reserve: Infant, nine months-meningitis; infant, six hours-congenital debility.
Causes of death at Fort Babine reserve: Aged woman, 77 years-acute coroliac; aged man, 78 years-senility; infant, three months -pneumonia; infant, 1 year-acute nephritis; infant, 1 year-bronchopneumonia; young man, 20 years-self-inflicted bullet wound.



HAGERSVILLE ARMY CAMP HOUSING


Mr. Charlton:: 1.	Was construction insurance placed on houses under construction by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the Hagersville army camp?
2.	If so, were tenders called for this insurance?
3.	Who was the successful applicant?
4.	Will these houses be reinsured upon completion?
5.	If so, what department of the government will arrange this insurance and how will it be placed?


Mr. Winters:: 1. No. The houses were not insured by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Whatever insurance was on the project was placed by the contractor.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



IMMIGRATION-LEM LOI BOW

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has Mr. Chow Lem made application for the admission to Canada of his daughter, Lem Loi Bow, from Hong Kong?
2.	Is Chow Lem a Canadian citizen?
3.	Has the department raised the difficulty that, as Lem Loi Bow is now over 25, it would require an order in council to deal with her admission?
50433-419i
4.	When was this application first made?
5.	How old was Lem Loi Bow at that time?
6.	Has the department also suggested, in answer to representations that she is alone and that it is a financial burden for her father to support her in Hong Kong, that she should return to mainland China where she has brothers living, and live with them?
7.	Has the department been informed that the brothers live in communist-controlled China and have been so far unable to escape?
8.	Does the department seriously advance the proposition that the daughter of a Canadian citizen should return to this communist territory with all its known intimidations and persecutions?
9.	If not, on what grounds was refusal of entry to Canada justified?
10.	Was the department further requested in September, 1954, to allow Lem Loi Bow to come to Canada?
11.	If so, have they acknowledged this request and to what effect? If no further consideration or reply has been given, what is the basis of this attitude of indifference?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3	to 11. It has always been the practice to treat information supplied by applicants for immigration and reasons for rejection of such applications as confidential between the department and the prospective immigrant or the sponsor. The prospective immigrant in this case was not and is not admissible under the immigration regulations.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister comment on the telegram from the international association of machinists, lodge 189, which I sent to his office this morning, protesting against further lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways at Winnipeg? Will he bring this protest to the attention of the management in the hope that these further lay-offs might be prevented?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. We have no information whatsoever about the alleged statement made by Mr. Dingle or the alleged lay-offs, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of the management of the company.
6636	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Mr. Trainor:: I intended to ask a similar question.

On the orders of the day:


Owen C. Trainor: should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Transport supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Would the parliamentary assistant state whether the lay-off at the Fort Rouge motor power shop in Winnipeg was the result of the policy of dieselization? If so, will the government give early consideration to the conversion of this shop to the repair of diesel locomotives?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I thought I made it clear that we had no information on the alleged lay-offs. As I have stated, the matter will be taken up with the management.



VULCAN, ALBERTA    REQUEST FOR BOX CARS OR EXTENSION OF CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the basis of a telegram which I received this morning from the Vulcan district board of trade. Will the minister look into the matter of the supplying of box cars to that point, where there are 230,000 bushels of wheat still to be delivered? If it is impossible for- the farmers of that district to deliver their eight-bushel quota, would the minister give consideration to the extension of the crop year to August 15?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will be glad to look into the question. As for extending the crop year, it is not possible to do that but sometimes the 31st of July is a long day.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
want to ask a simple little question of the Acting Prime Minister. I sent notice to the Prime Minister's office, and I do not know whether the minister received a copy. In view of the urgent representations from municipal representatives of northern Ontario for an all-Canadian gas pipe line, would the Prime Minister consider recommending the [Mr. Langlois (Gasp6).l

public ownership of this line as the best method by which the result desired by this delegation and other Canadians might be achieved?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government is unable to make any announcement about the gas pipe line from western Canada at this time.


Mr. Macdonr.ell:: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just said, I wish to draw his attention to a report in this morning's Globe and Mail which says-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It refers to the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce counselled patience to the representatives whom he welcomed from the lakehead and said that the gas pipe line could not be built this year or next. Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce amplify that a little and give us an idea as to just how long patience has to be exercised?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The statement in the Globe and Mail attributed to myself was never made. I do not know who gave the interview but that statement is not correct. As I have just stated, the government is not in a position to make any announcement or statement about the trans-Canada pipe line at the present time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the minister to correct the statement by saying just what he did say with regard to expectation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry that the literature read by my hon. friend is confined to the Globe and Mail. If he would broaden his reading matter he might be able to evaluate these things himself.


Mr. Drew:: The newspaper to which the
minister refers does not come out at this time of day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will plead guilty to
having read only one newspaper so far today, but the question still remains-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return yourself to the classics; they will do you more good.


Mr. Fulton:: Are you quoted in the classics?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister not
correct this incorrect report-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -so that we may actually know what was said at this interesting meeting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So the Star can get it right this afternoon.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   A.M. Nicholson@Mackenzie: I do not
see the Minister of Justice or his parliamentary assistant here today, so perhaps this question could be taken as notice.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Put it on the order paper.


Mr. Nicholson:: In view of the surprisingly uniform price increases in tires and tubes announced by three Toronto rubber companies in this morning's Globe and Mail, will the minister consider instructing the restrictive trade practices commission to investigate this matter?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: The question will, of course, be taken as notice.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I have not been able to give him notice of this question but I think he will be able to answer it. Has the policy announced by the former minister of citizenship and immigration in the House of Commons on June 28, 1951, providing for the migration to Canada of the unmarried children of Canadians of Chinese origin up to the age of 25, been discontinued? If so, when was this done and for what reason?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman had been as attentive in the estimates committee as I thought he was, he would have remembered a rather lengthy statement which I made, and which can be found in those proceedings, in which I said that in view of the time that had passed since my predecessor made the statement that applications would be entertained and considered for special action by the governor in council concerning children of Chinese Canadian citizens, where the children were between the ages of 21 and 25, we should revert to the ordinary law. For a number of years these people were virtually excluded from Canada. It was felt that, after five or six years had passed, any of those cases could have been dealt with and we should revert to the ordinary law, which has always been the same since the
Inquiries of the Ministry order in council was passed some years ago, namely that children are admissible only if they are under 21 years of age.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question, like some others, is based on an item in a newspaper that one does not mention to him, but in this particular case it was a Canadian Press dispatch. Will the minister say whether Canada is contemplating an exchange of peacetime atomic information as indicated by the supply minister of Australia at a press conference in Ottawa yesterday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada has always welcomed Australia to Chalk River. We have had Australians attached to our staff there, and so far as the future is concerned we will continue to welcome them there and make such information as is obtainable there available to the Australians.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Postmaster General. Did the Acting Postmaster General authorize a statement made yesterday in the press by the deputy postmaster general with respect to charges I made in this house on June 20 concerning post office thefts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the deputy postmaster general about an item which appeared in one newspaper yesterday, and I have not seen it in any other. There was no interview given by the deputy postmaster general to any pressman yesterday.
I am told that on the day before yesterday when I was absent from Ottawa and the parliamentary assistant to the postmaster general was also absent, the deputy postmaster general was approached by a journalist in the press gallery with a copy of a return which was made some time ago in this house about postal robberies, and that a number of questions were put to him; and he gave some answers to those questions, of which a report appears on page 7 of yesterday's Evening Citizen.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I told the deputy postmaster general that, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Quebec West had raised certain questions in the house, I rather regretted that any statement had appeared or been made to any journalist about this matter before there was an opportunity for the responsible minister to speak about it in the house. I think the deputy postmaster general also regrets that.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You cannot be sure of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can however be sure of one thing. I was a civil servant for a great many years, and I know how difficult it is when false and misleading charges are made about civil servants to remain silent on every occasion-though, in fact, during the whole time that I was a public servant I never gave any statement to the press on any occasion, and I never answered any question unless I was authorized to do so by the minister to whom I was responsible.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is in duty bound, in view of the nature of the subject matter, to make it perfectly clear to whom he is referring and to what remarks he is referring when he speaks about false and misleading statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am referring to a great number of false and misleading statements that have been made in and outside the house on a great many occasions about a great many civil servants, and I have nothing particular or specific in mind.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is no occasion to press this unduly, beyond the fact that the minister is dealing with a statement in a highly responsible newspaper which gave the impression that the deputy minister had made statements in reference to statements made in this house. Whether the minister agrees or disagrees with the statements that were made, they were made on the responsibility of a member of this house. If the statements of the deputy postmaster general had in fact challenged a statement made in this house it would have been a most improper course.
The minister has now talked about the provocation of false and misleading statements, and I think that he should make it perfectly clear that neither directly nor indirectly is he making any inference in regard to the statement of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it may be in the knowledge of most hon. members that there is on the notice paper of today a question which is to be answered orally on


Monday, and I intend to answer that question in great detail, and to deal, at that time, with every significant point raised by the hon. member for Quebec West. And I think it would be preferable to have the facts before anything further is said about it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I place the matter before you. The remarks that have been made are open to the interpretation that they did refer to a statement made by an hon. member of this house. I submit that it is not good enough to evade that now and to say: "I am placing facts before this house on Monday." The minister who has spoken has the responsibility of removing any uncertainty about the suggestion that the term "false and misleading statements" might have applied to statements made in this house by the hon. member on his responsibility as a member of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition wishes me to consider whether these remarks to the hon. member for Quebec West should be withdrawn?


George Alexander Drew: I submit that unless the minister is prepared to say that neither directly nor indirectly did they apply to the statement made by the hon. member for Quebec West, then he must withdraw them. It is not for the minister to charge any member of this house with making false or misleading statements.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On the point, I think the minister should be asked to withdraw. He not only referred to the hon. member for Quebec West as an offender, but as I recall it he referred to false and misleading statements made in this house and outside the house. I think that is quite improper language for any minister to use unless he gives specific instances. I, suggest he should be asked to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: As one who has been charged on many occasions as being perhaps too severe with expressions used in this house, may I say that I have heard these qualifications attributed to statements on many occasions in the last three weeks, namely that statements are false and misleading. I have heard it said on many occasions. If it is the wish of hon. members to have the expression withdrawn today I see no objection to it myself because there is no specific rule whatever with respect to these things. See citation 234, Beauchesne's third edition. An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be deemed unparliamentary next week. We have to consider the various conditions relating to the position which is taken at the time the expressions are used.

If the minister had said directly that the statements made by the hon. member for Quebec West were false and misleading we would have a point in asking that the expression be withdrawn; but he made the statement in a general way. Are we going to prohibit a member from saying that either inside or outside the house with respect to a certain matter there might be false and misleading statements made, without any direct attribution to a member of this house? I do not think so.


Mr, Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I say this is a point which should not be disposed of without due consideration. As Your Honour has pointed out on a number of occasions in the past, matters of this kind should be dealt with immediately or they are accepted as part of the ordinary exchange in the house. I, for one, do not believe that there should be too great a strain on the application of words and demands for withdrawals. In this particular case the minister did refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Quebec West, and then following that, he referred to the provocation under which civil servants have been as a result of false and misleading statements.
I submit that those words in combination suggest that for the purpose of misleading the house a member has made false and misleading statements. Unless the minister is prepared to say that they did not apply to the hon. member whose statement he had just been discussing, then I think he should be asked to withdraw. Of course, if these are to become an accepted part of the exchange here, then of course there might be a temptation for someone to talk about false and misleading impressions conveyed by ministers of the crown. I do not think that would be a desirable situation. In this case, Your Honour should consider whether these terms are to be accepted as appropriate to statements that have been made on the full responsibility of a member of this house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As I recall the words, they were something like "false and misleading, made in and out of this house". I submit that no hon. member and certainly no cabinet minister should be permitted to make that sort of reference without giving specific cases and giving hon. members the opportunity to defend the alleged charges. I submit that the hon. member should be asked to withdraw that statement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say one thing. I had thought that we were becoming too sensitive about things said in this house, but there is one word which does seem to me to be
Inquiries of the Ministry different from any other and that is the allegation of falsehood. Any hon. member can say anything he likes about me except that what I have said is false or anything suggesting untruthfulness.


Walter Edward Harris: Surely my hon. friend, who has on occasion engaged in discussion of my department, would not expect me to accept as a fact everything he says about it. Then what is wrong if I say that I think it is false?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely there is all the difference in the world between making a mistake-I am admitting to the minister that I make mistakes-and saying something which is false. False implies that you do it with knowledge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us get on with
the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless deliberate intention can be attributed to the particular expression which it is asked be withdrawn I do not think I can ask that it be withdrawn. At least two of my colleagues have come to me to discuss the point with me contending that if an hon. member says of another that what he says is a falsehood, the word "falsehood" is not synonymous with untruth, and the word falsehood implies a deliberate untruth. It may be that my knowledge of the English language is not as far advanced as that of some hon. members. I am not going to prolong this discussion and perhaps we can ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) to accommodate us and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am perfectly happy to-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not asking the minister to withdraw, I am simply asking him to accommodate us. Unless I can be shown that the expression was attributed directly to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), which I do not think it was, and unless the word "false" implies deliberate intention to say an untruth then I would not ask the minister to withdraw. See citation 257, Beauchesne's third edition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think a statement is either false or it is not false. It is a matter of objective fact. My knowledge of the rules of the house is limited but I attempted to stay within the rules and anything I said implied no motive on the part of anybody. I have made false statements in this house not knowing they were false, and I doubt if there is any hon. member of this house, except some praiseworthy members like the hon. member for Pictou, who does not take up a lot of time unnecessarily, who at times has not, without deliberate intent, said things that turned out to be incorrect, turned out to be false and

Supply-Agriculture
turned out to be misleading. All I did say was that it is sometimes hard to bear things like that in silence, because after all civil servants are human beings. That is all I said and that is all I meant. I was not implying in this particular reference any deliberate intention on the part of anyone.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has refused to withdraw a reference to a member of this chamber and, Mr. Speaker, I submit that you should examine Hansard when it is available and give a ruling at a later date and state if in your opinion the minister should not be asked to withdraw the reference which he made.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us examine this as calmly as we can and review the situation for one moment. The minister has referred to false and misleading charges or statements made in this house or outside of this house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: By members.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: He did not say that the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) made false and misleading statements in this house. He said false and misleading statements were made. The expression has been used very often, and I think the point should be considered as settled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing service-
29. Marketing service administration, $354,217.


Mr. Charlton:: Under this item there is an increase of $66,874. I take it that most of it is for increased salaries. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant would put me right on that point and say whether or not that is correct?


Mr. McCubbin:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct in his calculation that it is practically all for increased salaries.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have just another question. The parliamentary assistant last night, in answer to a question asked or a statement made by the hon. member for Kent (Ontario), implied that nothing was going to be done about existing federal marketing legislation until after the dominion-provincial conference this fall. I take it that further consideration is to be given to this matter in consultation with the provinces.


Robert McCubbin: It is the intention that this matter will be discussed next fall at the dominion-provincial conference and that an agreement will be arrived at between the provinces and the dominion with respect to this enabling legislation.


The Chairman:: Shall resolution 29 carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: I have one other point, Mr. Chairman. Under the details of services, I note that for the printing of reports and other material there is an amount of $1,500 this year while last year no such item appeared. Do I take it that previously this branch did not print any material, or is it something new? Did somebody else print the material for them? Why was there nothing in the estimates last year while $1,500 is provided this year?


Robert McCubbin: That is right. Some of the work that we were doing has now been taken over by the printing bureau.


John Alpheus Charlton: The parliamentary assistant says that some of the work they were doing has now been taken over by the printing bureau?


Robert McCubbin: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think the parliamentary assistant is operating in reverse, as it were, because the item appears this year for the first time whereas last year it did not appear.


Robert McCubbin: You are absolutely right in that regard. Some of the work in our department has now been taken over by the printing bureau. But in this particular case we are doing increased work which some of the other branches had formerly done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
31.	Dairy products, $802,513.
Mr. Cardiff:: Has this item anything to do with the increased amount of butter in storage or has it to do only with increases in salaries?


Robert McCubbin: Yes. With regard to the question of butter in storage, we shall discuss that matter in a later item, namely item No. 50.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: This is merely for salaries?


Robert McCubbin: Yes; this is for salaries.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have a further question on this dairy products item. I want to point out to the parliamentary assistant that some of this butter that has been in storage and has been released to the trade is not good. I submit to him that the department should be extremely careful in regrading the butter that goes out to the consuming public. On

two occasions I personally purchased from stores two pounds of butter that was rancid.
I submit there is nothing that will destroy the market for butter more than will the sale of rancid butter to the consumers. A consumer having purchased one pound of that butter is not anxious to go back and purchase another.
I say that careful consideration should be given to regrading this butter from storage, especially when it has been in storage for a period of six months or more. I take it that there is a considerable amount of butter that has been in storage for that length of time.


Robert McCubbin: What the hon. member has said is true, namely that we should be very careful. Am I correct in saying that this was butter that had been bought from a certain local store?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


Robert McCubbin: And. had been in storage?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


Robert McCubbin: To our account?


John Alpheus Charlton: There is no way for me to prove that it had been in the government storage, but I assume that fresh butter certainly would not be rancid; and there is not much butter stored by private companies, unless it is stored under government account. I am therefore assuming that it must have been butter under government storage.


Robert McCubbin: Certainly we should be
glad to investigate any case such as that because we want the butter to be of the very best throughout the length and breadth of Canada. But he and I know that there is a great deal of butter being stored by the private trade. It is not all stored to our account. The creameries in our district still are storing it for their winter trade and it is not stored to our account. It might come out of private storage. But if it did come out of our storage or anything stored to our account, we should be glad to investigate the matter.


John Alpheus Charlton: I submit that no one in
private trade, if he wants to stay in business, is going to send out butter that is rancid. I submit that the government should be much more careful about some of the stored butter sent out to the trade.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
32.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $529,235.
Mr. Barnett:: I notice that this item is for the sum of something over half a million dollars in the main estimates and that in the supplementaries there is a further sum of about $1J million. Evidently it is a subsidy 50433-420
Supply-Agriculture
arrangement under the Cold Storage Act which is becoming increasingly of value to various agricultural groups. I rise on this item to draw attention to what I consider to be an unnecessary limitation upon the application of the Cold Storage Act as far as eligibility for these subsidies is concerned. It arises out of a situation in my own constituency where a small farmers' co-operative organization applied for a subsidy.
The matter was taken up here and I made some representations on their behalf at the last session. As I understand the situation, the question of their eligibility under the present act was referred to the Department of Justice for determination and the ruling was made that they were not. The particular type of cold storage installation they had in mind is of a prefabricated nature, sometimes known, I believe, as the warm room type of cold storage locker. I think it has developed because of new techniques and production methods and was not contemplated at the time the present act was drawn up. It does appear to me to be a type of installation peculiarly suited to small farmers' organizations who are attempting to get started, sometimes in pioneer areas where they are still in the stage of developing their land.
I think it is unfortunate that such farm organizations should be denied access to the assistance available under the Cold Storage Act as it is now drawn. I therefore hope the parliamentary assistant will give the undertaking that he will draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and ask him to give consideration to the advisability of introducing an amendment to the Cold Storage Act to cover situations of this kind. I believe there are two or three firms in British Columbia producing this type of semi-prefabricated cold storage unit which can be installed in a building already in existence, and that because of the wording of the act this particular type of cold storage installation is not eligible for the subsidies provided under the act.


Robert McCubbin: We try to be as lenient as we can in the establishing of cold storage plants throughout the length and breadth of Canada because we feel they are very necessary for the preservation and processing of foodstuffs. If the hon. member will bring his case to me I will try to have the Minister of Agriculture look at it. Of course we have certain rules and regulations that we must follow and we must not depart from them because every effort must be made that can be made to see that such plants are the proper type in which to store food. But we are always glad to look into any case that is

Supply-Agriculture
brought to our attention or any amendment that may be considered necessary.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will be very glad to give all the particulars I can about the case. I am not a technical expert on cold storage installations but my understanding of the situation is that the disqualification was not on the grounds that the installation was not suitable for the purpose but rather on the legal ground of a ruling from the Department of Justice that under the terms of the present act that type of installation was not covered.


Mr. Small:: Can the parliamentary assistant give me any information with respect to the amount of $415,000 for Ayer Cold Storage Limited at Etobicoke? Can he give me a break-down of that amount and what it is for?


Walter Edward Harris: The cold storage places are all set out on page 117.


Robert Hardy Small: What is it for? What is the money being spent for?


Walter Edward Harris: They are all there.


Robert Hardy Small: These are just for cold storage?


Walter Edward Harris: They are itemized there.


Robert McCubbin: I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.


Robert Hardy Small: There is an item of $415,000 for Ayer Cold Storage Limited, Etobicoke. Is the money being spent for a new building, to buy property or extend a plant?


Robert McCubbin: I had the privilege of opening that cold storage plant in Etobicoke township last Tuesday, and my own feeling was that it was a worth-while cold storage installation to cover that whole area. It is one that is. going to cost in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000 or $2 million, but the amount that we will be providing is only a little over $400,000. I believe it is a worth-while cold storage installation in that district.


Robert Hardy Small: I am not complaining about that. I just wanted an explanation of what the amount was for. Is this tied in with the market that the department of agriculture of the province of Ontario has in that area?


Robert McCubbin: No. This is a private cold storage plant owned by a group of men.


Mr. Hodgson:: Is this a subsidy or grant from the government?


Robert McCubbin: This is the same type of grant that we pay on all cold storage plants that are eligible for the grant by coming up to our specifications. This amount represents 
the one-third of the cost we will pay towards all cold storage installations.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: To a private company.


Robert McCubbin: Yes, if it is to be used for public cold storage.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We should all be in the
business.


John Alpheus Charlton: In replying to the question of the hon. member for Danforth the minister has said this is a private company. Does this amount represent the entire grant to be made to the company? Is a further grant to be made and was a grant made in a previous year?


Robert McCubbin: As the hon. member knows, we have changed the procedure somewhat. Once the installation has been approved we make a direct grant of one-third of the cost that is eligible for the grant. The money has not been paid yet but it will be paid as soon as our officials approve the plant.


John Alpheus Charlton: That will be one-third of the cost?


Robert McCubbin: It is not one-third of the total cost but one-third of the cost which is eligible for our grant.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is on the understanding that the cold storage facilities will be available to the general public.


Robert McCubbin: That is right. They must be.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is there a certain percentage of the storage that must be available for public storage?


Robert McCubbin: I understand that the whole 100 per cent must be available for public cold storage.


John Alpheus Charlton: On what does the department base its estimate of the amount for such grants to be provided in any year's estimates?
I see that the amount in the main estimates this year is half a million dollars less than last year, but when we look at the supplementary estimates we see that an additional $1,500,000 is provided. Is the amount based on the applications received for subsidies, or how is it arrived at?


Robert McCubbin: I think the hon. member is right in his assumption that nothing is included in the estimates until we receive the application and the application is approved by us. Once that is done an amount is then placed in our estimates. It may have to be placed in the supplementary estimates because the main estimates are prepared before certain applications have been received and accepted.


John Alpheus Charlton: On what basis do you arrive at an estimate of $1,500,000 extra?


Walter Edward Harris: With the permission of the parliamentary assistant, might I answer that question since I am responsible for the form of the estimates? The parliamentary assistant has explained exactly what happens. In the fall when we are making up the estimates there may be only one application on hand for a cold storage subsidy which has been processed sufficiently that one can be relatively certain or, in fact, certain that one will be paying with respect to that particular application. That is the situation which obtains here. After October and early November when the main estimates are dealt with other applications will come forward or proceed to the point where you are almost certain you are going to have to make these grants, and those are included in the supplementaries. There are not so many going on but it does vary, understandably, depending on the year in which you deal with the applications.


John Alpheus Charlton: That being a fact, Mr. Chairman, and a million and a half dollars being quite a bit of money to be spent for new cold storage, is it fair to ask from whom these applications have been received and what percentage are co-operatives and what percentage private companies?


Robert McCubbin: Of the 20 items on which we are paying grants that you have there, there are 11 that are co-operatives and the balance are privately owned.


John Alpheus Charlton: We have not a list of 20.


Robert McCubbin: Yes, between the main
estimates and the supplementaries; I am taking both.


John Alpheus Charlton: These amounts in the supplementary estimates, the grants there, amount to a million and a half dollars- that is all right.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Am I to understand that a company which wants to build a cold storage plant can have a subsidy of one-third of the cost of building the plant?


Robert McCubbin: If it is eligible for assistance, the government will pay one-third.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What do you mean by
"eligible"?


Robert McCubbin: You would build three cold storage plants in one district. If there is a public cold storage in one district that might take care of that district, we would not allow another one to be built adjacent to it. We want to be able to serve the needs of the district, but if you have a district in which you feel there is need for public cold storage, 50433-420i
Supply-Agriculture
you come to us and we will look it over and tell you very quickly whether we feel it is eligible for a grant.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: After this plant is built, and so on, can the company charge the public regular rates for the use of that plant?


Robert McCubbin: The rates are subject to our approval. We cannot let them go ahead and charge what they like. We have the public Cold Storage Act, and I would be glad to send a copy to the hon. member if he so wishes.


John Alpheus Charlton: I see that according to the supplementary estimates five of these applications are from one company, Trans Canada Freezers Limited. Now, that being so, this company is getting well over three-quarters of a million dollars from the public treasury. Mind you, I am not saying that this is not good, but I think in view of the tremendous sum this one particular company is getting it would be fair to ask the names of the directors of that company.


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry, but I just have not got that information here, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member wishes it, we will get it for him.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think that is an unreasonable request in view of the amount this one company is getting. They might be rendering a very great service to the consuming public, but in view of the fact there is so much storage now being paid for by the government it would lead to question, I believe, that one particular company should be getting a grant of nearly a million dollars in one year for five storage plants. It is definitely stated here that the company was formerly interprovincial cold storages limited. If there has been a reorganization of that company simply for the purpose of getting this grant or subsidy, I think it is only fair that the members of the house should be given a list of the directors of that company. I hope the parliamentary assistant will get it for us.


Mr. Castleden:: This grant is available to either private companies or co-operatives. Have grants been made to the large packing companies, say Canada Packers, Burns and Company or Swift Canadian?


Robert McCubbin: No, it is not available for such companies as that.


George Hugh Castleden: Why not?


Robert McCubbin: It is public cold storage, in the interests of the public, and these companies use it for their own needs and wants.


George Hugh Castleden: In these cases in Alberta, the minister said the grants were given to those companies who have met certain

Supply-Agriculture
specifications. I gather, then, with regard to these three grants to this Trans Canada Freezers Limited in Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge, those places were all short of public cold storage accommodation and the grants were made on those grounds? This same firm is operating in Regina and Saskatoon?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it not a fact that some of the large packers have subsidiary companies in the cold storage business?


Robert McCubbin: So far as our department knows, Mr. Chairman, we have not paid any grants to the three companies that were mentioned, or their subsidiaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
33.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian horticultural council, $1,399,988.
John Alpheus Charlton: Under this item I notice that, as in many departments and many branches, there is quite a difference between the actual and estimated expenditures. The actual expenditures to December 31, 1954, for instance, of this particular branch were $911,394. The estimated expenditures for the balance of the year amount to $339,550, making a total of $1,250,944. I am not criticizing this, I am just asking the reason for the difference between the amount actually spent last year and the amount that was in the estimates last year, the difference being $78,000. Then, this year this particular branch is asking for $70,000 more than last year. What I am getting at is that the actual expenditure last year was $78,000 less. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not picking out this particular one. It just serves as an example. There are others that show a far greater difference. But the difference between the estimate for last year and the actual expenditure was $78,000-that is $78,000 less was actually spent. Yet, this year the department is asking for about $70,000 more, which is about $140,000 more than was actually spent last year. It seems to me that the figure is just a guess.


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member may feel that there is much in what he says, but he must keep in mind that in some years we employ over 200 temporary employees. Wages have gone up, and it is difficult to estimate the amount of money we will actually spend. I know the hon. member will find it hard to understand why we are asking for $140,000 more than we spent last year. However, last year we estimated we would spend a certain amount of money, although it developed that

we did not need to do so. This year we may need to spend it and we may not.


John Alpheus Charlton: Under ordinary business procedure I should think that the amount spent last year would serve as a basis for the estimate for this year. That is the point I am making. Yet there seems to be no connection between the two amounts. I realize that in other departments of government there are differences running up to $300,000, and I have just picked this one as an example. However, the same procedure seems to hold true in practically every branch. When there is a difference there is always an excess amount; there never seems to be more spent than is asked for in the item. Then in this instance we have an increase over the item in the previous year.


Robert McCubbin: The estimates are made up in October of the preceding year, and the hon. member will understand that it is now some considerable time since they were made up. It was difficult for us to forecast how much we would spend last year and, as the hon. member has pointed out, we spent considerably less than the amount set out in the item. However, we have had to prepare for salary increases. The hon. member can rest assured that we will not spend more than is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
34.	Live stock products, stockyard supervision and furs, $763,583.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: How do furs get into this item?


Robert McCubbin: We have grade standards for certain fur-bearing animals and, for administration purposes, they come under this department.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Would that take in sealing operations?


Robert McCubbin: No, only animals such as silver and black foxes or others in the same category.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: There seems to be no connection between stockyard supervision on the one hand and furs on the other.


Robert McCubbin: Under the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act the grading of furs comes under this department.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It should be under a special item so that it can be understood.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could answer my question now about lambs, and sheep.


Robert McCubbin: Last evening the hon. member for Kootenay West read a letter into the record sent to him in answer to an inquiry

he had sent me. He had asked when a lamb becomes a sheep. My answer would be this: A lamb becomes a sheep at approximately one year of age. For marketing purposes either of the following is commonly accepted: (a) when the two front lamb or milk teeth fall out to be replaced by permanent teeth, or (b) when the fleece has been shorn off for the first time.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Does that apply to the lamb I buy in restaurants? I think some of the lambs served in restaurants have lost all their teeth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
36.	Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Mr. Zaplitnv:: Would the parliamentary assistant give the committee a review of what has been done in connection with the marketing of agricultural products, for which this amount of $100,000 is asked? It is an interesting item, and we are all in favour of any activities which will promote the marketing of agricultural products. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would give a brief review of the activities of the branch in the last 12 months.	-


Robert McCubbin: One could make a long speech on the subject raised by the hon. member, but I think it unnecessary to do so at this time.
As hon. members know, 70 per cent of farm income in Ontario comes from the sale of livestock and livestock products, and of course a great part of farm income in western Canada is also derived from livestock. While they may be grain-growing provinces, livestock represents a large portion of their income.
For the information of hon. members I shall place on record figures showing the difference between marketings in the first six months of 1955 as compared with the first six months of 1954. Indeed I shall go somewhat farther than that and include an additional six weeks, bringing the figures up to July 16, the last we have.
In the length and breadth of Canada there were marketed 3,158,412 hogs in 1955, up to July 16 of this year. Last year there were marketed 2,614,529 hogs making an increase this year over last year of 20-8 per cent. Also our hog marketing percentages have gone up in western and eastern Canada. In eastern Canada they are up by some 16 per cent and in western Canada by 30-9 per cent over last year.
Supply-Agriculture
Then, turning to cattle: Up to July 16 of this year we marketed 992,479 whereas last year we marketed 988,356, or an increase in marketings of -5 per cent. This year we marketed 497,850 calves; last year we marketed 401,156, making a decrease of -7 per cent fewer calves marketed last year than this year. Up to July 16 of this year we marketed 149,749 sheep and lambs. Last year up to the same date we marketed 130,999. This year there has been an increase of 14-3 per cent. Hon. members will see that livestock marketing this year has increased a great deal over last year. I can say to the committee that the domestic trade and home consumption seem to be taking the great proportion of the marketing of livestock. I admit that some of it has gone to the United States, but not a great quantity. That indicates that the Canadian public is eating the greater part of our livestock and our livestock products.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I appreciate the statement on the marketings. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can add to that by giving us in each case the percentage that went into the export market and into the domestic market in the categories he gave us. Actually, the question that I asked was of a slightly different nature, although I appreciate this information also. My question had to do with what are the specific activities of this branch which has to do with the marketing of agricultural products; that is the promotion of the marketing. It is fine for the assistant to tell us that a larger number of hogs, cattle, sheep and so on were marketed in 1955 as compared with 1954, but that does not tell us what this particular branch of the department does in connection with these marketings. Ordinarily, it is a commercial transaction. The farmer produces his livestock, takes it to market and markets it and the government has nothing to do with it at all. As I said, we are in favour of anything which will promote the marketing of agricultural products. I should like to know what the Department of Agriculture is doing specifically to assist in or promote the marketing of agricultural products. That question has not been answered.


Robert McCubbin: As the hon. member will know, Mr. Chairman, the amount is the same this year as it was last year, $100,000. We use that amount of money for promotional and for advertising purposes, to advertise butter, apples or any product that we feel should be advertised in a promotional way in order to dispose of any surplus that we might have. A lot of the advertising is done overseas through our trade and commerce branch,

Supply-Agriculture
but nevertheless we do some of it here. That is the purpose of this $100,000 that appears in this item.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Do I understand that that amount was spent in advertising those products? Is that the full extent of the activities of the branch? Does it do anything else except advertising?


Robert McCubbin: I think the hon. member knows full well the answer is that we are doing everything we can not only in advertising but in promoting the sale of these products. We are doing it in respect of cheese; we are doing it in co-operation with the retail trade to assist them in promoting sales so that we can get rid of some of the surplus products we may have. Is that what the hon. member wants?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but it does not answer my question. While I heartily approve of anything that the department may do to assist in the sale of these products, my question is, what does the department do? It is all very fine to say we do everything we can. I am sure every member of this house would do everything he could to promote these things, but we are discussing an item of $100,000. So far the parliamentary assistant has told us they advertise. In the details there is an item for advertising which is in the neighbourhood of $35,000. What about the other $65,000, and what does the branch do? I should like to have a more specific statement as to what are these activities. We have one answer: they advertise. That is fine. I approve of it. What else do they do? How do they promote? What steps do they take to promote the sale of these products?


Robert McCubbin: As the hon. member
realizes, last year we spent only $15,000 of this amount for advertising and promotional work. Any criticism that might be levelled against us might be that we did not spend enough. One year we spent a lot more than that in a promotional campaign in respect of honey, to advertise and to promote it in every way possible so that we might dispose of any surplus that we might have. That year it was honey. This year it might be cheese. It is to help and assist other branches of the Department of Agriculture to sell some of the surplus products. I could go on and make a long speech on what we have done and have not done. I know the hon. member does not want that. He can rest assured that we are doing everything we can through this amount of money to help and assist. If we need more, I know we would get it. Any criticism the hon. member might have is

that we are not spending enough in promoting the sale of products. This is only to advertise to assist the retail trade. We are doing everything we can to help to advertise the sale of these products.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I certainly want to assure the assistant that I am not complaining about too much money being spent; not at all. If the work is effective and is producing good results I would be in favour of spending more. If the parliamentary assistant will look at the details on page 122 of the estimates he will see that for advertising and other publicity the amount is $35,000 out of $100,000. The largest amount shown in the details is $52,300 for marketing projects. More than half of the total item was spent on something called "marketing projects". Perhaps the assistant can tell us what are these marketing projects. What do they consist of? What type of activity is it, and how effective has it been in promoting the sale of those products?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard for me to say. I can tell the hon. member that in that year we used this amount in the advertising and promoting of the sale of honey. It was very successful. It certainly has been very successful in the promotional campaign in respect of cheese. We do that in respect of any product of which we might have a surplus. It might be promoting the sale of butter. It is pretty hard for me to tell exactly. Our experience in the past has been that where we use this amount it has been successful in selling the product that we have been trying to sell.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not wish to be tedious about this. The members of this committee are entitled to know in a little more specific terms just what is meant by "marketing projects". The assistant says it has been used in the advertising and promotion of the sale of honey. For example, there is an item of advertising and other publicity, $35,000. I would imagine that is where it is to be found. Then we have $52,300 for marketing projects. That is the only identification of the item. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can give us one example of how this branch in ways other than advertising goes about the promotion of the sale of these products. What do the employees do? I am not criticizing the department for this, but we do want to know exactly what is being done and whether it is the most effective way of doing it.


Robert McCubbin: As the hon. member knows, there are no salaries paid as it is made up of members of the department. But there are

some travelling expenses because they may go to certain parts of the country in an effort to try to sell a product or they may go to certain places to make speeches. Then again, a selling campaign may be started on, as I mentioned before, cheese or some other product. I could have a statement prepared for the hon. member of what we actually did. Last year we spent $15,000; other years we have spent very little, but it may become necessary to conduct an advertising campaign to sell one particular product and we would have the money to do it.


Mr. Tustin:: I have been trying to follow this explanation but I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give us a list of what was done last year.


Robert McCubbin: I shall have a detailed
statement prepared and placed on Hansard.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has said that no extra help was needed but I notice an item of $4,800 for casual assistance. Do the departmental officials get overtime for this work?


Robert McCubbin: Those details will have to be brought in in the same way.


John Alpheus Charlton: Some details are given. The amount spent up to December 31 was $5,597 and then it was estimated that for the balance of the year they would require $17,000. What was actually spent?


Robert McCubbin: Travelling expenses, $2,000; telephones and telegraphs, $100; publications, reports and other material, $5,000; advertising, $1,024; marketing projects, $7,200. Those are the exact amounts that were spent, but I am not in position to say what they were spent on.


John Alpheus Charlton: I come back to what I mentioned before. Having spent only approximately $15,000 last year, upon what basis does the branch now ask for $100,000? I wish they would spend the $100,000 in trying to sell agricultural products, but having spent only $15,000 out of $100,000 which was allocated to the branch, why are you asking for $100,000 this year?


Robert McCubbin: That is justifiable criticism. Last year we did not think it was necessary to spend it. The year before we did not spend more than $15,000. During the last four years we have not spent the total amount, but there were years prior to that when we did spend $100,000 for this purpose. It may be that in the coming year we will find it necessary to spend $100,000, but we hope not.


John Alpheus Charlton: I submit that there is more reason to spend $100,000 this year than there
Supply-Agriculture
was two years ago because at that time our surpluses were not nearly as large.


Mr. Maiheson:: Can the parliamentary
assistant give me the percentages according to provinces of the different grades of hogs which were marketed?


Robert McCubbin: What province is the hon. member interested in?


Neil Alexander Matheson: I want the percentages for last year.


Robert McCubbin: For Canada?


Neil Alexander Matheson: Yes.


Robert McCubbin: The total marketings of
hogs in 1954 were 5,078,715, with 25-5 per cent being grade A; 44-1 per cent, grade Bl; 3 per cent, grade B2; 6 per cent, B3 and 9 per cent grade C.


Neil Alexander Matheson: Is there not a table that would give it by provinces?


Robert McCubbin: If you wish them by provinces I could have a table prepared and put on Hansard. I am giving these figures from the Livestock Market Review for 1954.


George Hugh Castleden: It seems rather incredible that the parliamentary assistant should ask the committee to endorse a vote of $100,000 when $52,000 is spent on marketing projects of which he cannot give us details. He cannot give us the details with regard to what these projects were last year. He tells us there is no staff to do it but that they merely take casual staff here and there. It is a rather incredible situation that I do not think the parliamentary assistant should ask us to endorse wholeheartedly. If this money is to be available and if the livestock industry in Canada wants assistance and support I would suggest, as I suggested yesterday, that perhaps more money might be spent in supporting prices. Let the farmers get to work and produce more livestock and have the necessary support so as to be able to sell in the markets of the world to which, as the parliamentary assistant knows, we cannot get our available livestock production. The parliamentary assistant said that we produced so much last year. He knows quite well that it is only a small percentage of the capacity of the Canadian farmer to produce. Rather than endorse the granting of $100,000 for something which is quite nebulous and about which we have little information, I suggest that this amount might be much more effectively spent in another direction, namely to assist in the production of livestock in Canada so that the farmers can produce within the cost of production on the standard that exists in Canada today.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supp ly-A griculture Terminable services-
37.	Freight assistance on western feed grains. $15,500,000.
Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have not any intention of objecting to the freight assistance on western feed grains other than to say this. From time to time we get down here screenings on which freight should not be paid at all. I do not know of any way of stopping them from coming down here except by some government order. If the farmers in the west were getting any remuneration out of it, it would not be quite so bad; but as it is, an amount is taken off them as dockage. The screenings are supposed to be recleaned and some of the recleaned screenings are all right. They consist of perhaps one-third wheat particles and they are very good feed. But we get dirt down here that should never be brought down at all and freight should not be paid on it. There should be some conceivable way of stopping that stuff at the head of the lakes. Nobody is getting any advantage out of it unless it is the elevators or somebody else. I do not know who are getting the advantage but they should not get it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I cannot allow this item to pass without saying a word or two on it, although I have spoken on it before this session. We are extremely sorry to see this reduction from $17 million to $15,500,000 on freight assistance on western feed grains, a reduction of $1,500,000. That reduction is a serious matter to farmers-particularly to dairy men and poultry producers-in British Columbia, including those in my constituency. They have registered numerous protests. Farmers organizations and many individuals have written to me about this reduction which comes at a time when their costs are increasing and the prices they are receiving for their goods are going lower. While I am not one who advocates unlimited expenditure-I know we must consider all these expenditures-I must say that I think this is a poor place to start saving money, when it is done at the expense of the farmers of British Columbia, especially at a time when, as I said before, their costs of production are rising and the prices of their commodities are becoming lower.
That is all I have to say at this time except that I should like the parliamentary assistant to inform the house why the government saw fit to reduce the freight assistance on western feed grains at this time when the farmers are not in the position they were in three years ago. Can he give us the reason for this reduction?


Mr. Quelch:: When the parliamentary assistant rises, will he also say what has been the total amount of assistance paid to date?


Robert McCubbin: In reply to the three statements that have been made, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I sympathize with the statement that has been made by the hon. member for Huron. In our district we find that there is coming from western Canada some place a certain amount of screenings that are rather valueless as far as the farmers are concerned. We are not happy about that situation.
With regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Kootenay West, may I say this. The reason why the reduction was made was this. It was made at the insistence of the treasury board. As you know, the British Columbia payment has been reduced by $5 per ton on all shipments into that province. That reduction places British Columbia at the same level as that of the maritimes and the far eastern part of Quebec. You are not getting any more than they are getting and they are not getting any more than you are getting. The rates in the province of Ontario and those in Quebec were reduced by $1.50 per ton from $6 to $4.50. I certainly have not heard any criticism from Ontario or Quebec in respect of the matter. They still think they are being fairly used. The reason it was done was to place them in an equitable position with respect to other parts of Canada. You are receiving the same as they are receiving. What was the other question?


Victor Quelch: The total amount of assistance paid.


Robert McCubbin: Is that for the whole period or just last year?


Victor Quelch: For the whole period.


Robert McCubbin: The total amount of money we have spent is $228,898,136.


Victor Quelch: That is over what period?


Robert McCubbin: 
Mr. Patterson:: I think it was extremely unfortunate that the government chose that particular time to reduce the freight assistance on western feed grains to the province of British Columbia. As has been indicated, the farmers are facing serious conditions with the high cost of production and reduced income. We have, of course, raised this matter on a number of occasions and we have not received any satisfaction. It may be hopeless for us to expect that, in the near future, anything will be done to rectify the matter. But certainly we still voice and register our protest over the action that was taken.

Supply-Agriculture
Then, in connection with the quality of the enable them to carry on profitably while at feed that finds its way to the markets, may I the same time we are denied a market? say this. I was not aware of the situation I urge the parliamentary assistant not to particularly, in my area, until I was home at look upon this question just as an academic the Easter recess when it was brought to my matter about which he need not have any attention that some of the feed grain that great concern. To use a common expression
finds its way to the markets there is certainly of extremely poor quality. The farmers are voicing their protests over that situation. The parliamentary assistant said that he was concerned about it because the same situation obtains in his area. We hope that he will be able to do more than just be concerned about it. We hope that he will be able to bring influence to bear in some way so that the proper grades will be maintained right to the consumer.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary assistant the fact that there might have been some excuse a few years ago, when we were short of grain, for allowing some of these low-grade screenings to come down into this country. But now, every year, we are getting more and more thousands and millions of bushels of feed. The millers have already objected to some of the wheat grades on the ground that they are unsuitable to grind into flour. We are going to have still further thousands of bushels of feed.
The fact is that this particular feed that I am talking about should not be on the market at all. It should not be allowed to come down here, let alone have freight paid on it. The western farmers have so much feed grain on hand that they cannot get rid of it. We should be glad to buy it if we could buy it at a price. But I object to this sort of feed coming down into Ontario at all. There might have been an excuse for it at one time but there certainly is not any excuse for it now.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before the item carries, I should like to support the position taken by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I come from an area where we produce grain which could be used to good advantage in the Fraser valley. There is no reason at all why the people of British Columbia cannot have the very best of feed grain with no weeds of any kind in it. There is no reason why they should pay that exorbitant price. The high price which is charged destroys a market for our area. We want them to use our wheat. We want them to use our feed. We want to grow more and more of it so they can use it. That is what Canada carries on for. Where can you possibly find any sense in setting up an arrangement under which people just a few hundred miles from us are unable to get the feed they need at a price which will
among agriculturists, we want him to "sock the levers in" and get some results. It is no use for him to tell us he feels badly about it. He is close to being a part of the cabinet, and we are entitled to have these matters adjusted.
I sympathize very deeply with the people in Ontario and Quebec who are being supplied with feed which is most inadequate. I think they must get the idea we cannot grow good grain in the west. We do not want them to have this trashy material. We want them to have the very best of grain, and we will produce it.


Mr. Weselak:: I think it should be drawn to the attention of the committee that feed grains from western Canada are brought to the lakehead under the jurisdiction of the wheat board and are rigidly inspected by the board of grain commissioners. The jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board only extends to the lakehead.
I think the problem arises largely when these feed grains leave the lakehead and pass through the milling plants in the various provinces. These matters are under provincial jurisdiction, and perhaps the provincial governments should take a look at them and see if that is not the cause of some of these complaints.


John Alpheus Charlton: Further to what the hon. member has just said, it is true that the grain crosses the border into Ontario and comes to the lakehead, but Ontario should not be expected to take all the blame. I realize that the Ontario government has to accept responsibility with respect to feed sold in Ontario, but I have said on other occasions that the amount of weed seeds in the grain after leaving the head of the lakes is a disgrace. I am not saying it is the fault of the western provinces, but I do say that once weed seeds have been removed from the grain under the regulations of the board of grain commissioners then no weed seeds should be returned to feed and sold as feed.
I think that is sensible. The western producer does not get paid for it. Everybody knows that these weed seeds are put back into the feed just to bring it within a certain grade. It is a common practice and it is admitted by the elevator companies. That is business, and as long as they can get away with it they will because they are out to make money. But I suggest

Supply-Agriculture
sincerely that once weed seeds have been removed from grain under the regulations of the board of grain commissioners it should be against the law to return weed seeds to feed. I am not saying whether this is a matter that comes under provincial or federal jurisdiction, but I believe the federal and provincial authorities should certainly get together and see that certain amendments are made to the legislation.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to endorse what the hon. member has just said. We have had instances in the past winter of No. 1 feed screenings coming into Ontario and being sold to farmers for as high as $57 a ton. These screenings consisted of over 90 per cent wild buckwheat, and that is where I think the mistake is made. When we drew this matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I understand it was investigated by the board of grain commissioners and there is now a new definition of No. 1 feed screenings requiring that No. 1 feed screenings should contain at least 30 per cent cracked grain. The fact that this is some improvement is all to the good.
I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken when he says that the western producer does not get paid for these screenings. Nevertheless they are being sold at 2J cents per pound, or about $1.50 a bushel. The farmers of the west would be glad to sell their barley, oats and other commodities at that price. If freight assistance is going to be provided then I suggest that the $15 million should be paid on good grain and not on screenings taken out of the farmer's grain when hauled to the elevator. The grain companies take out the screenings at the head of the lakes and are selling a product for which they pay nothing. The product is being foisted upon feeders in Ontario and British Columbia. Instead of giving freight assistance on screenings and wild buckwheat,
I suggest that freight assistance should be given on good feed so that the farmers of eastern Canada will have an opportunity to know the quality of feed that the farmers of the prairies can produce.


Mr. Weir:: I have a feeling that a reflection is being cast on western Canada in that it is being suggested that we grow nothing but weed seeds and things of that character for shipment to our eastern friends to feed to their livestock. The point here is that some $228 million has been paid in freight assistance to move feed grains from western Canada to other parts of Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: Over a period of 12 to 13
years.


William Gilbert Weir: Certainly it is over a period of years. So far as we are concerned the freight assistance has the advantage of placing western Canada products in eastern markets that much more easily, and from a competitive point of view that is an advantage to us. I am not so sure that the same advantage exists all down the line because the freight assistance means that so far as eastern Canada livestock fed with grain brought to that part of the country with the assistance of a subsidy are concerned there are marketing advantages that are lost to the western producer of livestock. However, that is not the point I rose to speak about at this particular time.
Hon. members are complaining bitterly about weed seeds in feed grain being shipped to eastern Canada. That is regrettable, but if you analyse the whole matter right back to the beginning I think it will be found that it is a question of price. Apparently screenings can be sold at a lower price than clean or regular grains. I stand to be corrected, but I would think that the Ontario government or other governments in this part of the country where feed grain is sold would have the authority to prohibit the sale of dangerous noxious weed seeds within their provinces. We do not look upon wild buckwheat as a particularly serious noxious weed. It is true it is a serious nuisance, but there is a lot of nutritive value in wild buckwheat. The other weed seed that we have difficulty handling in the west is wild oats, but this is also very good feed, particularly when the oats are well matured.
The other part of the screenings is made up largely of cracked grain, cracked wheat, cracked barley and that sort of thing. This is always good feed.
Now, I said a moment ago that I think this thing goes back to the question of price. If the provinces where feed grains are being shipped wish to enact regulations prohibiting the importation of things like pigweed seeds or mustard seeds or some of these other noxious weed seeds, then I think those regulations could be enforced. A lot of people are trying to say that the farmer gets nothing out of the sale of these weed seeds. It is true they are refuse and a darn nuisance and all the rest of it, but if my recollection serves me correctly the farmer is paid for his screenings if his sample of grain carries a percentage of over 3 per cent or 4 per cent. He is paid according to the market price of screenings at this time. In addition to that, in the neighbourhood of one-half of our grain in western Canada is marketed through co-operatives. If there is any profit or gain from the sale of screenings outside the western provinces to eastern feeders, surely that is

reflected back in the balances of these co-operatives at the end of the year. To say that this is a total loss to the farmer, therefore, and that the grain companies get it for nothing, is just not borne out by the facts.
So far as our eastern friends are concerned, I think it comes down solely to a question of price. If you are buying screenings at a lower price than you are able to buy good oats and barley, things of that sort, I say that is the answer to why these things are coming down. Now, the freight assistance is a substantial item. I support the principle of carrying through this vote on the ground that freight rates are a very substantial item in shipping anything from one part of Canada to the other. Certainly, we gain by having this subsidy on the shipment of feed grain down here. I think it has placed us in a stronger competitive position with respect to the importation of grain from elsewhere. To that extent, it is definitely of very real advantage to us, and that is the purpose of the vote. From that point of view, I think it should be continued.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to mention this fact. The poultrymen and dairymen in my constituency, for instance, buy feed oats whole or feed oats crushed, and usually No. 5 wheat for feeding purposes. Talking about the matter of price, they are paying more for No. 5 wheat than the prairie farmer is getting for No. 1. Everything the farmers sell is graded under federal legislation, but just as soon as it gets out of the farmer's hands and into the hands of the milling companies it seems that the law is not enforced.
I understand that the grades of feed oats, feed wheat and things of that sort, because they are sold interprovincially, come under federal jurisdiction. I was at a meeting recently in Selmo and was shown samples of crushed oats and No. 5 wheat which were full of weed seeds and which were of very poor quality. Now, that is the repeated experience of the farmers in my constituency. I would ask the parliamentary assistant, is it not the responsibility of federal government inspectors to see that the grain sold in that way is according to grade? I do want to urge stiffer inspection of feed grains sold by the milling companies to farmers in other than the prairie provinces.


William Gilbert Weir: May I say to my hon. friend that if he bought No. 5 wheat from a reliable firm, he is entitled to have No. 5 wheat delivered to him. The same would be true if he bought a grade of feed oats, but if he sees those oats crushed up, then how is he
Supply-Agriculture
going to see the weed seeds? I do not know how you are going to determine the grade.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I just want to add one word.
I do not care what anyone says about it, some of these screenings are not fit for feed, but they are being sold. These screenings are taking the place of grain that the western farmer has that is not allowed to get on the market because the market is being supplied by these screenings that are not fit to be sold. You can talk any way you want to, but the fact remains that if these objectionable screenings that are brought down here for feed were not on the market at all the western farmer would get paid for a certain number of bushels of feed, oats or barley, whatever it was, which he now is not getting.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think probably something should be said following what the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa said. I made it quite clear at the start that we were not blaming the western farmer for these weed seeds in our grain. I did not say a thing, as inferred by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa, about blaming the farmers for growing these weed seeds. I was not blaming the farmer for anything in connection with these weed seeds coming into Ontario.
Following up what the hon. member for Kootenay West said, any carload of grain that came directly from any part of Manitoba or Saskatchewan to the east-I presume there would not be any coming from Alberta to the east-whether it be feed or anything else, is definitely under the responsibility of the federal government when it crosses the provincial boundary. It is only when it is brought to the head of the lakes and put in storage, then resold out of storage, that it becomes a provincial problem. If the co-operatives were dealing in it, we would be glad to buy direct from the co-operatives out there; then this feed grain would be under federal jurisdiction as to grade. I am suggesting that some grades are not strict enough in this regard.
The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa mentioned that these feed screenings were cheaper. It is true they are a little cheaper, but I am not sure just exactly how much. I am not sure what the price of No. 3 feed barley was at the time these feed screenings were sold at $57 a ton but I am convinced there could not have been more than $7 per ton difference. I might say I think it is very poor economy for a farmer to pay that price for it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the parliamentary assistant tell the house this. Is it not a fact that the federal government is responsible

Supply-A griculture
for the inspection of grain grades when shipped from the prairies to British Columbia by milling companies?


Robert McCubbin: If it is shipped from the prairies to British Columbia then it comes under the inspection of grades by the Department of Trade and Commerce. My own personal feeling in respect to this is that it is an involved matter, a matter that is too deep for me. I think the Department of Agriculture comes into it and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and all should be brought together to see if something could not be worked out. It is a very sore point in the province of Ontario. What the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and the hon. member for Huron have said is very true. I have listened to what has been said about British Columbia, and I feel that something should be done to get all the interested parties together and try to work out a solution satisfactory to everyone. Then, we will not be blaming the farmer for the type of weed seeds and junk we are getting in Ontario.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The parliamentary assistant says something should be done. Would he tell us that his department will make a special effort to correlate all those concerned to see if we cannot solve this question? It is too deep for the farmers who have been in this hole for a long time.


Robert McCubbin: I certainly would be glad to do anything that would help in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Alfred Robinson: We are now on item 38.
38.	Agricultural lime assistance, $500,000.


Mr. McBain:: Has the parliamentary assistant a break-down of the number of tons of lime on which freight assistance was paid by provinces?


Robert McCubbin: I shall get that when my officials are here. I saw it yesterday. I would not want to give it offhand. Here are the provinces that made use of this lime subsidy. Newfoundland, 3,011 tons. I will give the round figures. The subsidy paid was $4,419.78; Prince Edward Island, 21,990 tons, subsidy paid, $32,985.07; Nova Scotia, 42,040 tons, subsidy paid, $54,261.91; New Brunswick, 35,457 tons, subsidy paid, $45,232.62; Quebec, 190,155 tons, subsidy paid,$199,595.53; Ontario, 34,575 tons, subsidy paid $22,986.49;

British Columbia, 24,726 tons, subsidy paid $29,078.51; making a total subsidy last year of $389,599.


John Alpheus Charlton: I notice that the dollar figures for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were far greater than the number of tons. In the case of Ontario, however, the dollars were much less than the number of tons. Is the difference made up by the difference in the amounts paid per ton in the different provinces?


Robert McCubbin: I noticed the very point that the hon. member has just mentioned, namely, that in Ontario the amount paid was less than the tonnage. In Ontario the hauls are short and in some of the other provinces the hauls are long. In southern Ontario the amount paid was 50 per cent of the freight up to $1.50 per ton. In the Muskoka-Parry Sound area the freight was paid to a maximum of $1.75 per ton. In Northern Ontario freight paid was a maximum of $2 a ton. The difference in the freight haul accounts for the difference in the amount of subsidy paid.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is a difference by provinces, too. Am I to take it that no lime is produced in the eastern provinces? Would they not be as close to lime as Ontario?


Robert McCubbin: Lime is produced in the eastern provinces, yes; but the haul is longer. I have told the hon. member that there is a difference in the amount of freight paid in the different districts in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
39.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $5,700,000.
Mr. Bryce:: Is any change being contemplated in the premiums paid on high grade bacon hogs? Has the parliamentary assistant enough money in the estimates to continue paying $2 for a select and $1 for a bacon hog? The department is asking for less money this year than was voted last year?


Robert McCubbin: I gave the amount of money that was expended on Bl's and A's that were produced in Canada last year a short time ago to an hon. member from Prince Edward Island. The hon. member can multiply the figures and get the total amount. The amount of the grant spent last year was $300,000 less than the amount called for in the estimate. We do not know, but this year we expect it will overrun a little if the marketing of hogs increases. It is the intention to pay $2 for A's and $1 for Bl's.


William Scottie Bryce: No change is contemplated?


Robert McCubbin: No.


James Alexander McBain: The agricultural forecast tor 1955 predicted a substantial increase in the marketing of hogs. That figure was verified this morning by the figure the parliamentary assistant quoted to us, which was a 20-8 per cent increase in the marketing of hogs in the first half of this year. When these estimates were being prepared I hope the department did not assume that fewer grade A and grade B hogs would be marketed. If the grades are to be lowered and there has been a 20 per cent increase in the marketing and you have $300,000 less in the estimates, how are you going to meet the increase in hog marketing and the premiums?


Robert McCubbin: In the year 1953-54, which ran from April 1, 1953, to April 1, 1954, we spent $4,678,687 in subsidies. In 1954-55 we spent in the neighbourhood of $5,200,000. This year we are asking for $5,700,000. Therefore, the vote is up by $500,000 over what it was last year. The reason for that is that we expect an increase in the marketing of hogs in the coming fall and winter over the number marketed last year.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
43. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,924,253.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to spend two or three minutes on this item because the question of prairie farm rehabilitation is of great interest to the farmers whom I have the honour to represent. For years there have been repeated requests from farm organizations in British Columbia for the application of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to that province. In fact I believe they are asking that it be applied to all provinces in Canada. This desire arises from the fact that they know excellent work has been done under the act in the prairie provinces. I know that there have been various projects carried out in British Columbia under this act, but they have been carried out under estimates without the act being made applicable to the province in general. The farmers of British Columbia consider that that is an inadequate and piecemeal approach and that they should have an opportunity to benefit from the excellent services possible under this act by the inclusion of the province within the terms of the act.
Just to illustrate the opportunities there are for the application of the act to British Columbia I shall take my own constituency. There are 16,000 acres of beautiful black soil in the Lardeau valley which could be drained under the terms of this act and which are now unsettled. There are another 10,000 to 15,000 acres in the Duncan river valley of beautiful black soil which could be drained
Supply-Agriculture
and which have not a settler on them. In addition there are thousands and thousands of acres of producing land where the production could be increased by irrigation or land which is not now settled which could be made ready for settlement by irrigation.
There is a tremendous opportunity in British Columbia for the application of this act, particularly in my district because of the local markets we have in the industrial city of Trail and the commercial city of Nelson for all products except fruits. I have been asked by our farm organizations to again urge the government to consider the extension of this act to the other provinces. We have many young men who want to locate on farms and I think we should do everything possible to provide them with an opportunity to do so. Nature has provided the opportunity in British Columbia in abundance and if this act were made applicable to this province as it is to the prairie provinces it would prove most beneficial to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Canada. I do ask the parliamentary assistant to bring these representations to the attention of the minister and the government, because they have been made repeatedly throughout the years, and our people are looking forward to enjoying the benefits possible under this act, just as the prairie farmer has done ever since this legislation was enacted.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, this item is for nearly $4 million and the item which has to do with marshland rehabilitation also calls for a large expenditure. In following the discussion so far on these estimates I have been unable to find one suggestion for a lesser expenditure; usually it is the other way around and hon. members are expressing their opinion that greater amounts should be spent. I was a member of the estimates committee for a short time as we tried to divide up the work among the members from our province. I had expected to find that opposition members would be bitterly critical of expenditures by the departments as they have tried to give the impression that as members of the opposition they are doing a great work in saving the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars.
I have listened to the debate which we have had in this committee waiting for someone, particularly a member of the official opposition, to suggest some way in which money might be saved. Just for a few minutes I should like to express the views of the taxpayers of this country toward the perusal of these estimates that has taken place. On many occasions the official opposition have endeavoured to give the impression that they were carrying the ball in this

Supply-Agriculture
chamber in the discussion of estimates. If they are carrying the ball they are certainly making every effort to convince the citizens of this country that they are doing a fine job for the taxpayers. This courageous stand which they are taking in this heat in Ottawa has received quite a bit of publicity in the Tory press, I will admit, but for the first time during this debate-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Talk about something you
know something about.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am talking about something I know something about and I shall put a few figures on the record.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Put the blame where it belongs.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Hon. members of the opposition have suggested that they are prepared to carry on until the snow flies in order to bring about a great saving for the Canadian taxpayers. We have listened to them for two or three months and I think it is time we put some facts on the record.
One particular item had been reduced from $187,000 to $181,000 and we found the financial critic of the agricultural group in the official opposition getting up and wanting to know why there had been this decrease, why there had not been an increase instead of a decrease. Then there was a discussion in connection with grain subsidies where the item showed a decrease in one of the provinces, and immediately they wanted to know why there should be a decrease. The only instance that I can recall at this time where they were in favour of a decrease was in connection with the refreshments supplied to a certain government boat. Perhaps if some of those who criticized that expenditure had to travel on the waters where that boat goes, in many cases uncharted waters, perhaps if they knew that they would not get back for three, six, twelve months or even two years, they might take a different attitude toward the refreshments supplied.
I have just glanced over these different items but I find that hon. members of the official opposition have suggested greater increases in the amounts provided for the building of bridges, particularly in Montreal and in other sections of Canada. There have been many suggestions for improved facilities in the way of breakwaters all across Canada. When public buildings were being discussed there was hardly a member who did not want a building in his constituency. When airports were being discussed they wanted bigger and wider airports across Canada in 
every province. They were asking that dredging operations be carried on in many provinces of Canada. It was suggested that lifesaving stations should be supplied for the protection of those who operate pleasure boats on the great lakes, although the minister stated that it would cost $12 million or $15 million to get such a service under way, and $4 million to $5 million to maintain it afterward. Enormous irrigation projects have been discussed without any thought of a decrease in the cost.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Is this a speech on the budget?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: When I am through the hon. member can speak. I have taken very little time in this house but I am going to take a few minutes today. I thought that I would be in order before I started. If the hon. member does not want to listen to me he can go outside. Suggestions have been made that armouries should be provided in every province, that health grants should be increased and that substantial educational grants should be made available to the provinces as well as increased subsidies. Greater expenditures on the trans-Canada highway have been suggested and more generous financial assistance to hospitals all across Canada. Requests have been made for greater unemployment payments all across the country and the provision of roads in isolated places throughout the country. I do not criticize this, but it would cost millions of dollars. The extension of railway lines has been suggested which would cost tens of millions of dollars.


William Alfred Robinson: I presume the hon. member is laying the groundwork for a comparison but I hope he will remember that we are discussing resolution 43. He will recall that I have tried to keep the debate on these items as relevant as possible. I do not wish to interrupt a comparative argument, but the comments I have heard so far bear little relation to the item now under consideration.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I wish to make certain comparisons and I wanted to put these figures on the record before I did so.


An hon. Member:: A political speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You have made many political speeches, my friend. I have listened to many political speeches during the last six months and most of them come from the group to which you belong.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am saying that you are making a political speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am making a political speech for the taxpayers of this country.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It has nothing to do with the item.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It has been suggested that there should be much greater expenditures for research in this country and for better postal services, larger grants to fairs and exhibitions, greater expenditures for our forest protection, greater expenditures in connection with the welfare of Indians. These are some of the main items. It has been suggested that there should be increases in old age pensions, increased veterans pensions-


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has been speaking for about five minutes and he has not yet mentioned this particular item and has not dealt with it. He has dealt with all the other subjects we have been discussing for the past two or three weeks. I submit that the hon. member is out of order.


An hon. Member:: He was out of order before he began.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to my good friends to my left. It would appear that what I am putting on the record does not meet with their approval. If I am not out of order I propose to deal with the subject I have been dealing with. If I am out of order, I will deal with something else. But before I leave that' subject, again I want to say that, during the perusal of these estimates which are before us, the public of Canada should know the attitude that has been taken in this chamber and in the estimates committee by the members of the opposition.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I think you ought to speak on the estimate.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am going to speak on the estimate.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. In his first remarks the hon. member was referring to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act vote under resolution 43. He also referred to the attitude of hon. members toward discussing that vote and other votes, if I understood him correctly. He then proceeded, as I understood him, to make a comparison of this vote with other votes. I have listened to that comparison. It is quite true that his remarks to date have been directed more particularly to other votes than to the vote under consideration. Therefore, in accordance with the relevancy rule, I must ask him to relate his remarks to the item under consideration.
Supply-Agriculture


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I have violated the rules of the house. I had the impression that my friends to my left might want the taxpayers of Canada to have this knowledge; but since they apparently do not want them to have it, I am prepared to leave the matter as it is. There is a certain amount on the record.
I will now deal with the item that is under consideration. I often wonder whether the expenditure made in connection with this matter of rehabilitation is money wisely spent. I do not think that I can suggest any reduction because it is a matter of which I have little knowledge. I just want to speak briefly about some circumstances which prevail in the maritime provinces. In some areas, particularly in eastern Canada, we find many vacant farms. I can speak of my own province because I know it very well. There are many vacant farms in my own province. Would it not be better to take the amount which is expended for reclaiming marshlands or other lands and use it in a way which might improve land which we already have and which is ready for occupancy? I firmly believe that it is a matter that should be gone into carefully before large expenditures are made for reclaiming other lands. In my own province I know that you can drive through it from beginning to end and find vacant farms in each and every county in the province. I believe that the money which is voted for this purpose might be more wisely spent if it were spent in an endeavour to have these farms once more put into operation and to get families back on them rather than being spent in reclaiming land that we have practically lost.
That is about all I have to say. I am sorry if I have irritated my friends to my left but I felt that I should make those remarks.


George Harris Hees: You did not irritate us at all.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I felt that these remarks should go on the record because I have waited and waited for a suggestion to be made regarding cutting expenditure.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You are just making a childish speech.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It may be childish, but I have listened to most childish speeches from you and I have so often heard you asking for something for yourself. To me that is a most selfish attitude. I am speaking for all the taxpayers of Canada. I will wait until the end of the estimates because I expect to be here, as do my hon. friends, until the snow flies if necessary until they are passed. I am still waiting for that suggestion: Let us cut millions out of these estimates. I should like to hear their arguments.

Supply-Agriculture
I should like to hear them developed. Then I would feel that they were really trying to perform a service which would be appreciated by the taxpayers of this country instead of trying to make political capital for their own purposes in their constituencies.


George Harris Hees: Oh, take the halo off.


William Scottie Bryce: I am greatly interested in P.F.R.A. because the government intends to do a great deal of work in my constituency. I rise at this time to try to get an up-to-date report on what is taking place. I understood from the Minister of Agriculture-I do not remember when he told me this, but I think he said it-that they were paying $300,000 and that the provincial government was going to put up a like amount, and that the program would extend over five years. If I am wrong, I want the parliamentary assistant to tell me because I do not want to go back to Selkirk and tell the people something that is not right.
I do not know whether or not you would call it a survey that is going to take place. It has been caused by the floods that have taken place in the interlake area. The lakes have become very high. In fact, at one time I obtained the information that the level was 4-7 feet above normal. Then some letters I had last week said that it was two feet above normal or two feet above what it was last year. As to the people on lake Winnipeg, what they are worried about is that the P.F.R.A. people will start on the wrong end or will start on the lake Manitoba end and will flood lake Winnipeg. I will not put the letter on record but I have letters from dozens of people from Winnipeg Beach, Gimli, Sandy Hook, Matlock and so on right down the lake. The people there are afraid that the P.F.R.A. people will start at the other end, that is at the beginning. If this thing is feasible and if they are going to do something, they will have to start at the mouth of the Nelson river or the entrance to the Nelson river. Then they will be able to take care of the water that is gradually brought down. I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant can give me a report on what has taken place up to date. Then when I go back to Selkirk I will be telling the truth about the whole thing.


William Alfred Robinson: I recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to get an answer.


Robert McCubbin: I wondered whether some of the other hon. members wanted to speak. That is the only reason I was waiting.


William Scottie Bryce: I am the only member for Selkirk.


Robert McCubbin: I did not mean that. I meant that I was waiting to hear whether somebody else wanted to speak about something else under P.F.R.A. I am willing to answer the hon. member's question if I can. As you know, for this work he has just mentioned there is a special vote of $300,000. He is right about that. But it is $150,000 by the province and $150,000 by the dominion. It is for flood control and works in the Riding mountain and Duck mountain district in the interlake area of Manitoba. My hon. friend knows full well-better than I do-where those districts are and whether that is the answer to his question.


William Scottie Bryce: How much of the money has been spent?


Robert McCubbin: I think my hon. friend will find that under vote 47 in the estimates.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think I can let the
remarks of the hon. member for Charlotte go without some answer. I was rather surprised-


Walter Edward Harris: I thought it might get under your skin.


John Alpheus Charlton: It has not got under my skin. I am not worrying about what he said but I cannot let his remarks remain on Hansard. with no answer being made to them.


Walter Edward Harris: Is it not true?


John Alpheus Charlton: Some of it is, yes, and I am going to point that out.


Walter Edward Harris: Point out the incorrect part of it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I will mention that too. Just give me time. I was rather surprised that the hon. member admitted he had not paid much attention to the estimates but had glanced over them.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He admitted he was out of order.


John Alpheus Charlton: One thing he said with which I do agree, and which we have been trying to point out to the government for many years, is that the farmers are not in a good position. They are not wealthy, as many people assume. The hon. member for Charlotte admitted there were many farms in his province and other provinces in the east that had been abandoned, and you do not have abandoned farms where people are making money. That is the one thing in his speech with which I agree. We have been trying to point it out to the government for years, and I am glad to hear it from a government member.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before we leave this item I wish to refer to the answer the parliamentary assistant gave to the hon. member for Selkirk. It is rather intriguing because only a few days ago a return was tabled by the parliamentary assistant in answer to a question of mine which indicated that $150,000 was to be spent out of that appropriation for works in the Riding mountain, Duck mountain and Porcupine mountain areas. These areas happen to be on the west side of the lake and are entirely removed from the constituency of Selkirk. Either the parliamentary assistant was wrong in the first instance or he is wrong now because he is attempting to use the same money in two different areas which are almost 200 miles apart. I wish he would amend his reply and give us the correct information. Just where is the $150,000, to be matched by another $150,000 from the government of Manitoba, to be spent? In the parliamentary return it was specified as being for these three mountain watersheds which are about 200 miles away from the area where he now says the money is going to be spent. Which is the correct answer?


Robert McCubbin: I do not think I have made a wrong statement today or previously with respect to this matter. As I have told you, these flood control works are for the Riding, Duck and Porcupine mountain areas and also for the interlake area. The interlake area includes what the hon. member is referring to, does it not?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant is not too familiar with the geography of Manitoba. What is referred to as the interlake area is the area lying east of lake Manitoba and west of lake Winnipeg. The Riding mountain, Duck mountain and Porcupine mountain areas are on the extreme western boundary of the province of Manitoba, a very long way from what is known as the interlake area. If it is the intention to share this large sum of $150,000 between both areas, then we will of course be thankful for small mercies, but the information brought down by the parliamentary assistant was that the $150,000 was earmarked for these three watersheds on the extreme western boundary of the province of Manitoba. Now he says that part of it is to be used on the eastern side of the province about 200 miles away from the original project for which it was earmarked. All we are attempting to do is to find out which is the correct answer.


Robert McCubbin: Last year we did work under an agreement with the province in the Riding, Duck and Porcupine mountain areas.
Supply-Agriculture
This year it has been extended to the interlake area. Therefore I do not think I made a false or wrong statement in the return or in what I said today. It is only an extension of the work. I grant that the areas are a long way apart, but nevertheless the province feels the work is necessary and needed and we are of the same view or we would not enter into an agreement to help.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish to make it perfectly clear I am not objecting at all to any of the appropriation being used in the interlake country or any other part of Manitoba where it is necessary. However, this seems to be the only place where we can find out where and in what proportions the $150,000 earmarked for this year is to be spent and I think it is only fair we should be informed. What proportion of it is to be spent on the three watersheds I mentioned and what proportion in the interlake country? Perhaps the parliamentary assistant may have detailed information as to where the exact projects are. I would imagine they are under way at the present time and there should be no mystery about them. They should be in the process of being developed. Perhaps he could give us the exact locations where these projects are now under way.


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the answer he wishes. This is a project that was decided upon by the province and we are contributing to it. Therefore I feel his question should be directed to the provincial officials to find out in what areas it is being done and why it is being done there.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Then I will raise another
important question. Does the Department of Agriculture not consult the provinces in advance as to the nature and location of projects to be undertaken before agreeing to pay 50 per cent of the cost? I would certainly imagine that if the federal government is going to commit itself to pay 50 per cent of the cost of a project under an agreement with the provincial authorities it would have consulted them and have come to an agreement as to the nature and location of the projects. I would be very much surprised if that had not been done. I would expect that would normally be done some time in the months of January, February and March, certainly not in July or August when the projects should be pretty nearly completed. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether it is the policy of the department to consult with the provinces and agree upon the nature and location of these projects before a commitment is made to pay 50 per cent of the cost?

Supply-Agriculture


Robert McCubbin: I certainly am agreeable to getting any information. This information was handed to us and they can spend the money wherever they wish in the interests of a particular district. We agreed to go 50-50 with them up to the extent of $300,000 and the treasury board was also agreeable, but the matter was left with our provincial officials. I am sorry I have not got details with respect to the information they sent to us.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to get this quite
clearly established now because it is very important that we get detailed and correct information. The parliamentary assistant will remember that about a month or six weeks ago I placed a number of questions on the order paper seeking information as to the details in connection with all these projects. The information should have been available at that time but the only reply I received was that $150,000 was to be spent on the watersheds of the three mountains I have mentioned. Now we have come to the estimates and the answer that is given is that the $150,000 is going to be divided between the three watersheds and the interlake country. We still have no information where these projects are going to be, whether they are under construction at the present time and what amounts are to be spent each year. Perhaps we will not get the answer today. I will not weary the house by insisting but I wish to register the protest that I think the committee is entitled to clearer and more categorical answers than we have been getting. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant is at a disadvantage in not having all the information at hand.


Mr. Martin:: I think we will all agree he is doing very well.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will make no comment on that. I assume he is doing his best with the information he has available. I wish to make a protest on this basis. The very information we are asking for today was requested on the order paper almost six weeks ago. There is no excuse for saying today that the information is not available. It could have been made available either by way of an answer to the question or on the questioning here today. I wish to raise a protest because too many times it has happened that we get these special votes put into the estimates, the minister and his department spend the money as they see fit, and after the money has been spent we cannot even find out in detail the way in which it has been spent or to what advantage. We are entitled to that information, although I am not going to insist upon it. If the parliamentary assistant cannot give us the details

today he will have to be excused. I wish in future that he would take advantage of the notice given and have the information at hand.


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry that I have not a detailed answer, but when we get it I will see that the hon. member receives a copy.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to discuss the proposed dams on the Swan and Assiniboine rivers. I am sorry the minister is not here. I have had correspondence with him in connection with these projects over the past several months. The former member for Mackenzie, the late Mr. Ferrie, while he was employed by the prairie farm rehabilitation branch stated at a public meeting in Kamsack that the dams would be constructed on those rivers-at least there is a press report to that effect. The minister indicated that definite decisions had not been reached. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could indicate at what stage the negotiations are in connection with these proposed dams?
I might say I have had a good deal of correspondence with the minister in connection with extending the boundary for the area served by P.F.R.A. The northern boundary ends at the northern boundary of the rural municipality of Clayton, and that probably seemed a reasonable boundary at the time. The boundaries of the municipality have been extended another 18 miles north into the Porcupine range mentioned by the hon. member for Dauphin. I am sure the minister has a copy of the excellent brief prepared by the council of the rural municipality of Clayton, pointing out that in connection with the general conservation program of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, these two dams are very important. The Swan river is fed from quite a number of lakes and rivers in the area north of that, and the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made a very helpful suggestion a few weeks ago when he outlined the major projects that should be undertaken at some time. These two proposed dams on the Swan and Assiniboine would certainly appear to me to tie in with the over-all proposal made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could bring us up-to-date regarding plans for these proposed dams.


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member referred to one dam, and that is still under consideration; I will say that much. In respect to the extension of the area covered by P.F.R.A., that of course is a matter of government policy about which I am not in a position to answer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The prairie farm rehabilitation officials have been conducting a survey on Pipestone creek in southwestern Manitoba. I presume on the basis of that survey it is intended to go ahead with some flood control measures in that area. Would the parliamentary assistant indicate what the plans are or the cost of such a project?


Robert McCubbin: I can only say that it has been decided to go ahead with the project.
I have not the figures right at hand.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not imagine the federal government will be working in conjunction with the provincial government on this measure. Is it a co-operative effort or will the P.F.R.A. handle it alone?


Robert McCubbin: It is a co-operative effort between the dominion, the province and the municipalities; it is a three-way agreement.


Victor Quelch: I had intended to speak at some length on this item regarding the very fine work that has been done under prairie farm rehabilitation in the constituency of Acadia, but in view of the lateness of the session I am going to let that go. There are a couple of items here upon which I should like the parliamentary assistant to give me some details. There is an item of $186,000 for earth-moving equipment and $106,000 for repairs to machinery. Is that equipment chiefly for maintenance work? It is not the policy of P.F.R.A. to actually construct any of the dams, is it?


Robert McCubbin: We do not actually build these dams, but we have a lot of maintenance equipment. The item to which the hon. member referred is for maintenance equipment which is used to maintain these dams, dug-outs and so forth.


George Hugh Castleden: How many persons are employed under P.F.R.A. in Saskatchewan at the present time?


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member for Yorkton the figures in respect to Saskatchewan alone, as some of the positions overlap into Alberta and Manitoba, but the total is 322.


George Hugh Castleden: That would be for the prairie provinces.


Robert McCubbin: Yes, that is right, for the three prairie provinces.


George Hugh Castleden: Those are permanent employees, are they? How many temporary employees were employed in the past year?
Supply-Agriculture


Robert McCubbin: The figure I gave the hon. member is for temporary and permanent employees. We have not got them divided as to how many are permanent and how many are temporary.


George Hugh Castleden: That is the total?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: In a return made to the house some time ago concerning the employees, I noticed the names of some persons who are ex-M.L.A.'s for Saskatchewan. I should like to know whether or not the parliamentary assistant can assure us that those persons employed by P.F.R.A. would not engage in political activity while on duty with the department?


Robert McCubbin: I think I can answer that question. I am pretty sure that no employee of P.F.R.A. will engage in political activity in Saskatchewan.


George Hugh Castleden: I have had reports to the contrary, so I am glad to have that assurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The smiles on the faces of the government members speak more loudly than their words.


Mr. Leboe:: Could the minister tell me whether any of this vote is used in British Columbia, and if so how much?


Robert McCubbin: No, there is none of this vote used in British Columbia.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to say a few words on this point to supplement the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West a few minutes ago. He was referring to the area with which he is familiar in the interior of British Columbia. However, I would point out that on Vancouver island there are areas which certainly could benefit greatly from the sort of thing provided here in the nature of water storage and irrigation projects.
While the area of arable land in British Columbia is only a small percentage of our total land surface, nevertheless because of the different climatic conditions we have we could engage in certain forms of production along the eastern coastal plain of Vancouver island which could not be followed in many other parts of Canada. An extension of the program so that perhaps a small fraction of it would apply to areas of that kind would certainly be beneficial. I must say the farmers in my area find it difficult when they are faced with the problem of securing a supply of water in storage, and they find they have some difficulty in understanding why none of the moneys in this vote are made available for the development of their lands.
6660	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture


John Alpheus Charlton: I note here an item of $76,000 for the purchase of bulls for pastures. How many bulls were purchased?


Robert McCubbin: There were 60 mature bulls and 150 bull calves purchased for community pastures.


John Alpheus Charlton: Of various breeds?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, beef breeds.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is one breed limited to one pasture, or is a decision made as to what the breed will be in a pasture?


Robert McCubbin: A group of people come
together and place their cattle. They decide if they want Herefords, Shorthorns, or Polled Angus. A bull of one of those breeds would be placed in a pasture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
44. Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,048,340.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the parliamentary
assistant give a survey under this item, a vote of something more than $7 million. What major projects are now under way in the three prairie provinces and what progress has been made? Also, what projects have been planned for this year, but not yet commenced?


Robert McCubbin: It covers the Bow river
irrigation project southeast of Calgary, the St. Mary river project in the Lethbridge area, the South Saskatchewan river project, the Buffalo Pound reservoir and others of large proportions, for which large amounts of money will be spent.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I take it none of this vote refers to any major project in Manitoba. Would proposals which have been made for some time to go ahead with projects on the Assiniboine river, and to lower the lake levels in lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg, be included in this type of vote, in the future?


Robert McCubbin: They would not come under this. This is only for the projects I have mentioned. If it was decided to go ahead with the projects my hon. friend has mentioned they would come under a vote similar to item No. 47.


John Alpheus Charlton: I note in the details that there are 257 employees who are classified as engineering assistants, seasonal engineering assistants, equipment operators and seasonal equipment operators, and that they are deleted from the 1955-56 vote. I would assume that some of these have been reclassified. However, it is not clear what they are now called. It would seem that they are changed to instrument men, draftsmen, rodmen, welders, and 

motor mechanics, and that these did not appear last year. I note that there are 195 fewer employees, but that there were 257 of these engineering assistants and others. Would the parliamentary assistant explain this.


Robert McCubbin: While the basic program remains unchanged from last year, there is a decrease by 44 in the number of continuing staff, which is accounted for by an increase of 12 in the P.F.R.A. vote and the dropping of 32 positions. Then, 148 positions shown in last year's estimates as seasonal have now properly been designated as casuals and transferred to the projects concerned.


John Alpheus Charlton: Are the people who were engineering assistants before now known as rodmen, levelmen, and the like?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, they are classified differently.


John Alpheus Charlton: But they are the same people.


Robert McCubbin: Practically the same.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about tractor operators? Then I see there are 14 equipment operators which have been dropped, and 10 tractor operators have been added. Are they the
same?


Robert McCubbin: Yes; last year they were shown as seasonal employees. They are shown this year as casual employees.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, they are not shown as casual employees. There were 100 seasonal engineering assistants last year and 14 equipment operators, and 4 seasonal equipment operators. I can see no casual employees here at all. But apparently they are the same people and have been reclassified from the classifications of engineering assistants to soil mechanics and rodmen. I note that there are ten seasonal rodmen.


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me to explain. A block of money is set aside to take care of this type of work. The hon. member will find that in one place so much money is used for casual employees and he will find that there are 200 fewer individuals, and that some of these casual employees are employed as seasonal employees.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not want to labour the point. There must be a reason for setting aside 139 engineering assistants, 100 seasonal engineering assistants, 14 equipment operators and 4 seasonal equipment operators. There must be a reason for leaving these out of the estimates this year and putting in instrument men, draftsmen, levelmen, rodmen, as well as mechanics. What difference

does it make what they are called if they are doing the work? What is the reason for changing the classification?


Robert McCubbin: Last year they were put in as employees; this year they are hired on the job and charged to the job, whatever job they happen to be doing. Of course, they are not continued on indefinitely. When the project is finished they are finished.


John Alpheus Charlton: These are not called seasonal employees, Mr. Chairman. These are permanent officials. There are only 10 rodmen who are classified as seasonal and 54 labourers. I do not imagine that engineering assistants would be put in the category of labourers.


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member is talking about last year, is he not?


John Alpheus Charlton: Last year as compared with this year.


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member is talking about last year. This year they will be charged to the project.


John Alpheus Charlton: Why the change in name? What is the significance? There must be some reason for doing things. Why should "engineering assistants" be dropped? Why should the name be dropped and "soil mechanics" and "rodmen" be substituted? There must be a reason for doing that?


Robert McCubbin: I do not know what other answer I can give. There is nothing sinister about it at all. Some of these men are young students who work during the summer. They are charged up to the project and at the end of the season they are out; they are not paid for the full season.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $500,058.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This item deals with Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether any instructions are given by the department in the regulations under the act or by any other means as to the method by which employees shall be secured for the purposes of the act? I have in mind, for example, various districts in my own province and perhaps this applies elsewhere. In the fall when inspections have to be made for the purpose of determining the average yield to qualify for assistance under this act we find very often that inspectors and other employees, particularly inspectors who go out to do the checking, are not farmers. It may be necessary to use the services of someone who is not a farmer. I admit that, but these cases must be very few and far between because
Supply-Agriculture
in nearly every area there should be a sufficient number of farmers capable of going out and doing an inspection job.
In my opinion, they are often more efficient than the one who is not engaged in farming because they are more familiar with the situation. Yet we find in some districts a majority of the inspectors appointed are nonfarmers. They are often business people, professional people from the towns and villages, and they go out and do inspection work among the farmers. This creates a certain amount of resentment-I think justifiably so -particularly in Manitoba, where the farmers have been contributing to the prairie farm assistance fund by way of the 1 per cent deduction approximately three times as much as they have drawn out of the fund. They look upon the remainder of the money in the fund as their own money, which actually it is. Since they have contributed into the fund moneys which are to be disbursed as assistance, they fail to see why the administration of that money should be put into the hands of non-farmers when farmers are available for that work. I do not know whether the department gives any instructions on that point to their field supervisors. If they do, I would hope that in future they would take the trouble to bring to the attention of the supervisors that where it is possible-that would be the case in probably 99 per cent of the districts-to engage the services of actual farmers to do the inspection work, that should be done. Only where such personnel is not available should they use other persons. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether any instructions are given in the first place to their supervisors as to the method they shall use in engaging their help? In the second place, are any instructions given to the effect that farmers should have the preference in filling these positions?


Robert McCubbin: The question asked by the hon. member for Dauphin is a good one. I am told that our supervisors-and there are 12 of them-are told to hire farmers, if at all possible, to do this inspection work. Those are the orders that go out from our department. They are to hire farmers or municipal men or men qualified to do this type of work. The farmer gets the preference in all cases.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am very glad to hear that. I can assure the parliamentary assistant that in future when we find the supervisors are not carrying out these instructions we shall get in touch with the department with our complaints.


William Gilbert Weir: May I say at this point I do not think in every instance it necessarily follows that what the hon. member for Dauphin says

Supply-Agriculture
is true. Some of these inspectors are obliged to put a considerable length of time on this inspection work and farmers are just not always available. I go along and agree with him completely that where the experienced farmer is available to take on this inspection work, his services should be utilized. From my own experience I know that in many cases the farmers do not feel they can spare the time to do all the necessary detail work that many of them have to do in connection with this work. There are two sides to this thing. So far as the farmers are concerned, they are not always available to do it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have already said that there are circumstances under which farm personnel is not available. I said that at the very beginning. I want to assure the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa that I am not complaining of the instances where the supervisors are not able to find farmers to fill these positions. I can also tell him this. He might find the same situation in his own constituency if he investigates it. Quite often the complaints I have received have been from farmers who have been available and who have mentioned to the supervisor the fact that they are available. They have been passed over, and the supervisor has gone into the town surrounded by farmers and has picked half a dozen business people from the town to go out and do inspection work on the farms all around the town. He has by-passed the farmers entirely. The reasons for thinking so could be several. It has been suggested that there might be some political influence involved, but I am not going to make that charge today. The assistant has assured us that the instructions given to the supervisor are to use farmers wherever possible. If we find that for some reason of his own the supervisor is not carrying out those instructions, then we will have a legitimate complaint which we will lay on the doorstep of the department.


Mr. Yuill:: Mr. Chairman, I think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is perhaps one of the most confusing pieces of legislation we have. When it was first set up it dealt almost entirely with drought conditions and there was no particular problem in designating areas that were eligible for benefits, but when it was extended to cover varying hazards it became more confusing. I have had interviews with the officials in Edmonton and in Ottawa and I want to pay my tribute to these fine fellows because they were most courteous and co-operative. They did everything within their power to find answers which would satisfy these people who were so worried.
[Mr. Welr.l
I come from what might be considered a new part of the country. I suppose it could be called a fringe area and we have special problems, which are not like those faced by what could be termed the dried-out areas. The people there do not seem to know anything about how the act applies to them and they feel that there is a certain amount of discrimination prevailing. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding and I should like to offer some suggestions to the minister.
I suggest that the minister consider putting out something in the form of a poster couched in simple terms which the average individual could understand. For instance it could set out what constitutes an eligible area, what would be the benefits accruing, and why certain areas are ruled out. These things are confusing to the people. For instance, they do not understand why they are denied benefits which their neighbours are getting. I know that there is a good reason for everything, but this seems to be a sore point in our part of the country.
Another question raised by these people is in connection with land taken since 1940. I appreciate the fact that when the ruling with regard to land of this type was brought into effect it was intended basically to deal with submarginal land. I think it was a good thing because it is anything but sensible for people to set themselves up as a going concern in places where the soil is not good. I think the reason for the ruling was wise, but the areas in our part of the country which were ruled out were not ruled out because of the lack of fertility of the soil. They were ruled out because they were considered to be located in places where a problem was posed, first of building roads and, second, of providing school facilities. For that reason they had to rule them out and they did not permit that land to be settled.
But what was a good thing 15 years ago is something different today. There has been rapid expansion in that part of the country and these areas now represent going concerns from a farming point of view. The land has been settled gradually, roads have been built, schools have been provided and crops are being produced which are normal when compared with those produced in any other community. But when adversity strikes they find that they are ruled out because of a technicality. I suggest that when the legislation is reviewed that matter be taken into consideration. I think it could be adjusted to do what it was intended to do in the first place and provide a service to these people which would be satisfactory.

There are other things which I would like to say but I do not want to take up the time of the committee in saying them. I ask the minister to consider this idea of putting out a poster which could be put up in the rural post offices where everyone could see it. If anyone felt he had a claim he could go and look at the rules of the game and then decide what he wanted to do. That would save a lot of money and it would enhance the good will that should prevail between the Department of Agriculture and the producer. Administrative costs would be reduced, as many of these questions could be simply and easily answered by putting out true facts in understandable terms. I do not think there is one man in a dozen who can take this act with its technical phraseology and understand what it is all about. The average man may be able to interpret part of it, but when it comes to interpreting the whole act, that is more than he can do. This suggestion, I think, is a reasonable one which would pay dividends in many ways.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I want to say one final word in respect to this act and to repeat my plea that a change be made in the method of calculation for prairie farm assistance to the basis of the individual farm unit. I know this matter has been brought to the attention of the minister before and it may be considered that it is superfluous for me to bring it up at this time, but I do so because of what has occurred during the past year in a particular area in my constituency.
I know it is argued that to administer this act on the basis of the individual farm unit would be akin to a crop insurance plan and that the act was not essentially such a plan but rather a sort of farm relief plan whereby the farmer would be able to remain on his farm and pay the few essential expenditures in order to tide him over to the next crop year.
Mr. Chairman, the minister has also stated that if such an act was to be considered as a crop insurance act he might meet with some constitutional difficulties. I just cannot accept that reasoning. I do not believe there are any constitutional difficulties that would stand in the way, and I do not see why it cannot be administered on the basis of the farmer's need when, through drought or through some other unforeseen circumstances within the meaning of the act, he himself has lost his crop. Under the present system there just is not justice given having regard to the needs of these farmers who find they end a crop year without a crop.
I have mentioned this matter before. The minister knows all about it. Hon. members
Supply-Agriculture
here know all about it. But can we emphasize too much the injustice that is done to a farmer who is hailed out? Suppose he is in a long strip of hail storm. Suppose he is hailed out or is dried out and receives a yield which should ordinarily bring him within the meaning of the act so that he can get payment. But because he is not in a certain block of sections the yield of which is higher than his, he cannot receive payment. Yet his neighbour right across the road, whose yield is higher than his, receives the prairie farm assistance payment. You cannot tell the man who has received a lesser yield that there is any justice in an act which gives payment to his neighbour who received a bigger yield. There is no arguing around that point. You cannot get away from the argument that such a circumstance is indeed unjust. The farmer with the lower yield has paid into the fund over the years, and he has perhaps paid more into the fund than has his neighbour across the road whose yield is bigger but who yet receives the prairie farm assistance payment.
Let me suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the parliamentary assistant, to the minister and to the government that there is one principle we must remember in the bringing into operation of any legislation and it is this. No act is worth a great deal if those who are affected by the act have no confidence in it. The one thing that makes a piece of legislation sound is the fact that the people affected have confidence in the legislation. If there is anything that will destroy confidence in any legislation, it is when the administration of that legislation, although within the confines of the terms of the act, proves to be unjust. I cannot see that there can be any argument against that proposition.
I now come to just a bit of a grievance in respect to the particular section of the country which I have in mind. In presenting this grievance I would suggest to the minister that 1 am not complaining of the close and efficient attention which the top-level officials within the provinces are giving to the administration of this act, the responsibility for which is theirs wherever they may be located. In presenting certain complaints and individual cases to these top-level officials, I have always found that I have received commendable replies. Notwithstanding the fact that some hon. members may have criticism, I will say that I have always found them to be fair and that they have done their best to see if they could not remedy the complaint. However, I wish to support the hon. member for Dauphin who, speaking a little while ago on this matter, at least connoted that there may be a feeling that some inefficiency exists in respect of the lower level.

Supply-Agriculture
I refer to inspectors who went around attempting to solve the prairie farm assistance problems in certain areas.
The problem largely arises when a certain community or section of the country is passing through a year in which they have experienced conditions which had not previously occurred. Perhaps it is an area where they have had fair crops over the years. Perhaps they have not come under the act for years. Then suddenly a poor year strikes that community and a number of farmers in that section-perhaps a considerable number of them-are affected. Perhaps the unfortunate circumstances may be applicable to a large area. They now find themselves with a crop failure by reason of drought, hail or something else. So they begin to make application.
Municipal officials begin calculating and certain areas are determined as eligible areas. The inspectors are now sent in. If my information is correct, I am afraid that some of these inspectors have not been just as competent as they might have been in going into a new area. The result has led to considerable confusion.
For instance, certain information is required when a farmer makes application for payment. The inspector may go to him or he may call a number of farmers into town when he is there and he may take that information. Many farmers are obliged to rely upon their memory for statistics and they answer the questions to the best of their ability. The farmer signs his name to the application form which contains all the questions asked. That is all right. We have no complaint about that. But that form has often been regarded as absolutely final, even though the farmer perhaps has had to trust to his memory for a good deal of the information.
I have one instance in which farmers got together and began to compare notes afterwards, and in which they found they had given incorrect information. It was not done intentionally but through a slip of the mind; it was something they did not remember. Then upon making inquiries they found that the document they had signed was regarded almost as a sworn statement. Some of these farmers were told this: "You cannot change your mind now. If you do so, you may be subject to a charge of perjury".
That word "perjury" is a dynamic word. It strikes terror in the hearts of those who do not recognize all the implications which might be involved. Some farmers have said, "I am not going to run the risk of being put in jail," and so they let the matter go. I went to some of these farmers and I said to

them, "Have you that application that you signed?"; the answer I received was, "No; I have not. No copy was left with me".
I give this illustration in order to indicate that there can be some confusion in new areas of that kind where past records are not available. We know that when this act first came into existence there was tremendous confusion because farmers very often do not keep any-too-accurate records and they had to rely on their memories. As the years went by, in those areas which suffered more or less continually from drought, the government officials had the records there.
The farmers have learned to keep more accurate records. That problem is now largely solved but in new areas the same problems can exist. I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that I believe that one thing that should be impressed upon inspectors, as they go into an area in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, is that they should try as far as possible to satisfy the farmer and give any benefit of the doubt to the farmer who has perhaps paid into the fund for many years. The impression some farmers get is that the inspector is there to try to do them out of something that it is the farmers' right to receive. I am not going to say the inspectors do that, but that seems to be the general impression that some of the farmers in this particular area receive.
That is why I agree with members who have spoken previously that these inspectors should be men with some farm experience. I know that is not always possible but they at least should be men who have had experience with the act, who know what the act means, who are experienced enough to understand the farmer's problem and can sit down with the farmer as a friend and say to the farmer; "You have lost your crop and I am here to help you." They should take the information on that basis and there is no reason why a copy of the application and questionnaire should not be left with the farmer so that he will know exactly what he has signed. If he finds he has made a mistake he can make a complaint and have a review of his application on the basis of further information received.
I present this matter to the parliamentary assistant and ask him to pass it on to his minister and the appropriate officials so as to make certain that the farmers get what is actually coming to them if they find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of losing a crop. Once again I urge that in order to make the act just and equitable in its application to the farmers we consider putting payments on an individual farm basis. I know it is said that would be a lot of work

but I do not believe it would involve any more administrative work than at the present time.
With respect to the suggestion that it would then be a crop insurance plan and might run into constitutional difficulties, I do not believe that is so. When a community is hard hit and relief comes into the picture the people go to their municipal officials. What do they say? They do not say that if a person lives on a certain street and in a certain block he cannot get assistance but has to live in a particular block that is regarded as eligible. They do not think of things in those terms. It is a case of whether the individual is in need. If this act is an act devised to tide the farmer over by reason of individual need because he has lost his crop, then he should be considered on the basis of his individual farm.
I propose that again and I say to the minister that I am going to keep on proposing it whenever I have the opportunity. I think all western members should do a little worrying of the minister. They should keep on worrying him, worrying him and worrying him until he turns around and says that something must be done. I will not take any more time of the committee. I do not think I will need to do so on any of the remaining items. This is the only item on which I have spoken and having done so I have a clear conscience now that I have presented the matter in the best and strongest way I can.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Without repetition, I should like to say that I agree thoroughly with what
23, 1955	6665
Sup p ly-A griculture
the hon. member for Macleod has just said. While I am on my feet I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to give us figures showing the total amounts collected by means of the 1 per cent levy under the act by provinces since 1939 and also the total amount disbursed under the act by provinces. I would ask him to give particular figures for 1954. I want the total amounts from 1939 to 1954 and the individual figures for 1954 because in the reports available so far 1954 is not complete. Perhaps by now the figures for 1954 are all available.


Robert McCubbin: With respect to what the hon. member has just said I will be glad to put these tables on the record. They are rather long. Will it be all right if they are put on Hansard?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What do they include?


Robert McCubbin: What the hon. member asked for, the different provinces, the amount of levy collected, the total levy and the total payments.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What years?


Robert McCubbin: From 1939 to 1955.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Very good.
The Depuly Chairman: Is it agreeable that these tables be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert McCubbin: The tables are as follows:
SUMMARY 1% LEVY COLLECTED 1939 TO MARCH 31, 1955
Crop Year	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	Unallocated	Total Levy1939-10	. $ 333,453.13	$ 1,344,208.23	$ 743,121.61	$ 724.40	$ 2,421,507.371940-41	. 354,813.76	1,360,540.00	866,831.79	502.32	2,582,687.871941-42	. 339,969.87	711,869.33	407,642.45	272.05	1,459,753.701942-43	. 481,974.50	1,536,146.00	710,632.53	322.51	2,729,075.541943-44	. 779,490.76	2,743,544.09	1,191,300.92	371.01	4,714,706.781944-45	754,366.36	3,218,572.23	1,412,417.31	230.71	5,385,586.611945-46	. 575,408.69	1,977,735.42	873,082.60	131.69	3,426,358.401946-47	. 845,631.86	2,704,357.17	1,644,706.41	112.20	5,193,807.641947-48	. 764,744.37	2,727,187.90	1,624,237.42	148.51	5,116,318.201948-49	. 1,120,741.27	3,417,480.86	2,084,088.52	6,185.87	6,628,496.521949-50	. 1,355,660.07	4,525,628.79	2,515,568.28	197.64	8,397,054.781950-51	. 1,442,138.08	3,890,444.68	2,001,322.58	153.72	7,334,059.061951-52	. 1,331,548.73	5,075,404.05	2,560,006.74	116.72	8,967,076.241952-53	. 1,423,916.39	6,370,894.35	3,074,384.50	5,116.75	10,874,311.991953-54	. 973,258.03	4,939,452.16	2,069,163.48	5,158.10	7,987,031.771954-55	. 385,080.07	1,373,591.61	791,276.79	152.31	2,550,100.78613,262,195.94	$47,916,056.87	$24,569,783.93	$19,896.51	$85,767,933.25
[DOT]. McCubbin.]



PAYMENTS UNDER P.F.A. FROM 1939 TO JUNE 10, 1955

[Stage Direction]
MANITOBA	SASKATCHEWAN
Program No. of	Total	No. of	Total
Awards Payment Awards Payment
ALBERTA	BRITISH COLUMBIA
No. of	Total	No. of	Total Total payments Total awards
Awards Payment Awards Payment
1939	6,960	$ 905,416.54	39,464	$ 7,574,890.68	12,142	$ 1,429,708.31	$ 9,910,015.53	58,5661940	6,368	615,109.23	40,846	5,603,266.80	4,356	504,179.29	6,722,555.32	51,5701941	1,009	36,513.28	62,473	12,010,772.42	20,880	3,466,120.05	15,513,405.75	84,3621942	No Payments	No	Payments	No	Payments	No Payments	No Payments	Nil1943	126	16,685.25	22,000	5,037,472.87	9,232	2,425,057.59	7,479,215.71	31,3581944	1,417	163,501.97	10,576	2,980,282.68	9,145	2,833,762.91	5,977,547.56	21,1381945	428	30,148.50	43,437	12,541,768.16	18,951	4,395,734.38	16,967,651.04	62,8161946	87	6,163.50	40,286	9,204,820.72	7,130	1,620,922.17	10,831,906.39	47,5031947	3,624	490,410.75	54,892	13,368,005.75	17,277	3,375,088.60	50	4,166.25	17,237,671.35	75,8431948	488	63,638.75	46,581	11,532,255.50	14,735	2,544,571.50	14,140,465.75	61,8041949	2,072	333,089.00	49,657	15,373,732.75	33,477	6,343,796.25	22,050,618.00	85,2061950	3,116	347,239.00	26,601	5,608,926.00	26,486	4,314,371.75	1,334	214,185.75	10,484,722.50	57,5271951	1,828	207,393.00	11,073	2,247,920.25	11,949	2,171,140.50	275	29,888.75	4,656,342.50	25,1251952	1,169	185,691.75	3,969	810,803.50	4,001	532,101.75	468	42,285.75	1,570,882.75	9,6071953	5,030	619,863.25	5,740	1,143,177.50	5,548	1,007,525.25	2,770,566.50	16,3181954	23,440	4,182,630.00	87,379	21,314,665.50	32,261	5,512,951.75	531	73,812.50	31,084,059.75	143,61157,162	$ 8,203,493.77	544,974	$126,352,761.08	227,570	$42,477,032.05	2,658	$ 364,339.00	$177,397,625.90	832,3646666	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture

Item agreed to.
46.	Land protection, reclamation and development In British Columbia under such tejrms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $90,281.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the parliamentary
assistant give us information as to the location of these projects, the details, and on what basis decisions are made with regard to commencing projects under this vote?


Robert McCubbin: There are no new projects contemplated for this year. It is only engineering, upkeep and so on, on projects already in existence that are contained in this vote.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Maintenance?


Robert McCubbin: Maintenance entirely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
47.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $924,000.
Robert Hardy Small: I am not too much interested in the details of this item but owing to the tirade of the hon. member for Charlotte a little while ago with respect to the official opposition not being interested in the reduction of expenditures, I should like to draw his attention to this particular item. Last year the amount of the estimate was $795,000 and they only spent $424,000, about $371,000 short of what was estimated. This year the amount of the estimate is $924,000. I am not contending that we should not spend the money but I think it would be more in keeping with economy if the government had come somewhere near the figure they spent last year. To my mind it is not a question of saving money but rather this appears to me to be a first-class job of padding the estimates. For the particular benefit of the hon. member for Charlotte, I would refer him to this item so that he will see that the official opposition does look at the figures in an effort to bring about some economies for the people of this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the parliamentary
assistant tell us if there are any new projects in British Columbia included in this vote?


Robert McCubbin: No.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I think we should have an explanation of this item from the parliamentary assistant because it is really a blank cheque so far as the department is concerned. It states here that this item is for land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council. The amount is for nearly a million dollars. Then, over in the details there is a note to the effect that $674,000 of this 50433-421J
Supply-Agriculture
is for reclamation of lands, engineering and supervision of construction, purchase of right-of-ways for said works, to provide reclamation measures to enable the settlement of farmers on new lands.
Now, the hon. member for Charlotte said that down in his province there were lots of farm lands, good soil, and all that was needed was farmers. Why does the department need to spend a lot of money here when you have farms and all you need to do is put farmers on them? What was this money spent for last year when you had a grant of nearly $800,000? The hon. member for Charlotte admitted he was only making a political speech and he was out of order, but he did make the statement that there were lots of lands down there. I should like the parliamentary assistant to tell us why it is proposed to spend this money-perhaps it is going to be spent down there, we do not know -nearly $900,000 to put people on new lands when we have this land available?


Walter Edward Harris: It is 900,000, not 9 million.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The house leader smiled so much when the hon. member for Charlotte was making his political speech. Perhaps I quoted the figures wrongly, but the amount is $924,000, and that is nearly a million dollars in my estimation. It is $129,000 more than was voted last year.


Robert McCubbin: The explanation of what the hon. member has stated is that certain money was voted last year for the work but of course, as hon. members know, weather conditions were such that it was impossible to spend it. There was too much rain. A great majority of this is just a revote for projects that were started last year.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That does not explain why you only spent half of what was voted last year and why you want an increase this year of $129,000.


Robert McCubbin: There are certain works to be undertaken in Manitoba. There is the Pas-quia control and diversion project which was not completed last year. We are endeavouring to complete this project. There was some for Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What about this $674,000 for reclamation work to enable the settlement of farmers on new land?


Robert McCubbin: That is the Pasquia project up near Le Pas in northern Manitoba.


John Alpheus Charlton: Did I understand the parliamentary assistant to say there was some of this work done in Ontario?


Robert McCubbin: There was some in New Brunswick.

Supp ly-A griculture


John Alpheus Charlton: You said in Ontario.


Robert McCubbin: There was some work done in Ontario, down in Essex county, a small project on which we spent $60,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: I take it that some of this reclamation work is taking farmers off land that has been flooded and placing them on new property; is that true?


Robert McCubbin: No, that is not the case. It is only flood control work which makes it possible for the farmers to farm this land.


John Alpheus Charlton: Well, I think I can read. It says, "to provide reclamation measures to enable the settlement of farmers on new lands."


Robert McCubbin: Yes; but as the hon. member is well aware there is land] that is flooded; it is good land and if that land is drained of course the farmer can go on and work the land.


John Alpheus Charlton: This says "new land", it is not existing farm land.


Robert McCubbin: You may have a field at home that was never worked. You drain it, and you can go on it and work it; that is new land.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did, but I paid for it.


Robert McCubbin: I know.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I was wondering what this
Johnston western Canada ranching project was, for which there was $46,000 voted last year? I do not see anything for it this year, and I was wondering what it was?


Robert McCubbin: That was a V.L.A. reclamation project, under which we drained some land so the veterans could go ahead and farm the land.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Where is it located?


Robert McCubbin: In British Columbia.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: On the question of the Pas-quia project, that does deal with new land and a new settlement, as the parliamentary assistant knows, in which the Department of Veterans Affairs is interested and to some extent the province of Manitoba. I understand that last year particularly, and I think also in 1953, there were special drainage problems in that area and a consulting engineer was hired in Winnipeg to make a special study of the drainage problem and make a report. I should like to ask if, as a result of that study, the necessary steps have been taken to take care of that particular situation? Secondly, is the province of Manitoba involved in this project, and to what extent, with the federal government?


Robert McCubbin: This is a co-operative
project with the province of Manitoba. We entered into an agreement to try to drain
350,000	acres 'in this Pasquia area in the Carrot river triangle. We are doing that cooperatively with the province.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask what the financial basis is? Is it a 50-50 proposition?


Robert McCubbin: It is about 50-50.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I also asked about the special drainage problems there in 1953-54, where some of these attempted drains had the water running in the wrong direction. The consulting engineer was to make a report upon that. Has the report been received, and have those recommendations been carried out?


Robert McCubbin: We have not received those recommendations respecting water running the wrong way. Maybe it is, but we will see.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
48.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,216,017.
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Charlotte made certain comments about the maritime reclamation projects which, 1 think, should be clarified. One must give the hon. member for Charlotte a certain degree of credit at least for being outspoken. Earlier in the session he voiced opposition to the Beechwood hydro project in New Brunswick -the only New Brunswick member on either side of the house to do that. Today he virtually admitted that the opposition had been carrying the ball all session-something which I do not think any of the other parties have been doing. Then he comes out and says that he questions the wisdom of the marshland reclamation project.


Mr. Winters:: He did not say that.


Thomas Miller Bell: With respect to the marshland reclamation project, I think we should take a moment to ask for a statement from the parliamentary assistant, respecting future plans, and what they have in mind for this reclaimed land. I ask this because I think all the reclamation in New Brunswick is in my constituency. We appreciate the attention that has been given to the reclamation of our land, and believe it is something that is necessary for the future welfare of this country. We have always wondered just what will be done. Will the government foster some kind of farming projects, or will it attempt to develop grain production, or what are the future plans under this item? As I say, I ask these questions because of what has been said by the hon. member for Charlotte.

Supply-Agriculture


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would like to say for a change, sensible contribution to the
a word on this item.	debate.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Stick to the item.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have been accused of that before today, and I think you are the same gentleman who accused me of making a political speech. I have listened to political speeches from you and your group for seven months now-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You never heard me make a political speech in the house.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: All I have ever heard from you is political speeches. That is all you have ever made.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert has insinuated that I have been criticizing maritime marshlands rehabilitation. The only criticism I had to offer-if indeed it was a criticism-was the fact that in my opinion, since we are working with the provincial governments in these expenditures, it might be well to look the situation over in the maritime provinces, having in mind the possibility of investing this money to greater advantage in farms that were established years ago and which have been abandoned. In my opinion this might be an expenditure which would bring much greater benefit, if it were used for this purpose.
I have in mind different things in connection with this expenditure. For a long time I have worried about the depletion of our forests in New Brunswick; and if these farms which have been abandoned will not produce farm commodities, it might be well even to consider planting trees which would be of benefit to the next generation, if not to this one. I believe the minister and the officials of his department should go into this matter carefully with the departments of agriculture in the provinces, with a view to investigating it thoroughly. I believe they might be convinced that it would be well to give serious consideration to the rehabilitation of farms which have been abandoned for some time.
That was what I had in mind when I spoke on this matter an hour or so ago. I was not in any way criticizing the expenditure that has been made, because we all realize that these marshlands are very productive. At the same time we have down there in the maritimes land that could be made productive again at much less expense than would be involved in the reclamation of the marshlands.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would like to say something for the record, too. The hon. member for Charlotte has perhaps made a very good and,


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; I have been in this chamber for 10 years and I believe I would be able to make as sensible a speech as any member who has come here from Saint John-Albert in all that time, including the present member.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The type of criticism that has just been made scarcely accounts for a question of privilege. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert may continue.


Thomas Miller Bell: The point I make is that I did not necessarily insinuate what the hon. member for Charlotte has said. I simply said that he questioned the wisdom of reclaiming this land-and I think he did say that when he first spoke, and he most certainly said it a second time when he spoke a moment ago. That is all I said on both occasions I referred to it-that he questioned the wisdom of this vote.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I have no intention of getting into the argument between the hon. member for Charlotte and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. My concern is only that of getting information as to how the amount is divided among the maritime provinces.


Robert McCubbin: As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is no doubt aware, in 1948 an agreement was entered into between the dominion and the maritime provinces under which they would build, construct and maintain dams and dikes, and the provinces and the marshland owners would go ahead and put in small drainage systems and utilize the land to the best possible advantage. I think that has been carried out successfully.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Have you spent this amount of money?


Robert McCubbin: Yes, and I can give details of it. Replying to the hon. member for Queens, I would repeat what I said, that there was a definite agreement between the dominion and the maritime provinces, and we are carrying out the work according to the agreement. If hon. members wish, I would be prepared to place on Hansard a table showing how the money has been spent during the time the agreement has been in effect.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that this table appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert McCubbin: It is as follows:
LMr. McCubbin.]



M.M.R.A. EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
Year	Administration	Surveys and Engineering	Workshop	Construction	Maintenance	Totals1949-1950	$ 54,096.56	$ 46,208.55	$177,573.53	$ 43,605.45	$ 35,313.01	$ 356,797.101950-1951	40,482.73	144,237.87	112,705.55	604,833.40	80,649.32	982,908.871951-1952	56,795.94	181,493.50	169,740.03	688,401.58	99,556.54	1,195,987.591952-1953	56,809.77	251,877.21	241,248.09	1,008,041.17	87,588.85	1,645,565.091953-1954	38,920.82	307,656.67	167,471.57	1,366,462.88	112,681.49	1,993,193.431954-1955	39,820.68	275,508.78	130,739.34	1,013,479.64	87,900.60	1,547,449.04Totals	$286,926.50	$1,206,982.58	*$999,478.11	$4,724,824.12	$503,689.81	$7,721,901.12CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCES	Year	N.S.	N.B.	P.E.I.	Totals	1949-1950	$ 35,236.24	$ 43,682,22	$ 78,918.46	1950-1951	430,104.45	236,213.27	19,165.00	685,482.72	1951-1952	400,843.27	356,954.19	160-66	787,958.12	1952-1953	587,062.40	508,543.58	114.04	1,095,630.02	1953-1954	732,947.97	746,011.10	185-30	1,479,144.37	1954-1955	624,003.17	477,289.55	87.52	1,101,380.24	$2,840,197.50	$2,368,603.91	$19,712.52	$5,228,513.93	
$112,181.01 credited to Workshop-Previous years votes as at April 1, 1955.
6670	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture

Item agreed to.
49.	Assiniboine river-dyking and cut-off, $100,000.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, this item has appeared in the estimates for the past few years at the sum of $100,000, to provide for diking on the Assiniboine river. The need for that diking has become obvious down through the years, because of periodic flooding. That was particularly so this spring when we had flooding on the Assiniboine river of unusual proportions. What is the nature of the work covered under this vote for the forthcoming year? Are any changes contemplated in connection with the flood control program on the Assiniboine as a result of experiences last spring?
Strong representations have been made in the house to the effect that in order to solve the problem we must get back to more basic methods of control, namely a reservoir in the area of Russell. In the light of more recent experiences, what plans are developing?


Robert McCubbin: We are continuing the work we have been doing in connection with diking and cut-offs. As the hon. member knows, the sum of $100,000 appears in the main estimates and there is another $100,000 in the sup-plementaries for this purpose.


Owen C. Trainor: In view of what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has just said, will the parliamentary assistant state whether there has been any reassessment of the basic engineering problem on the Assiniboine river, or are they proceeding on the old assumption that dikings and cut-offs are the answer?


Robert McCubbin: They are certainly going ahead. Engineers are there all the time calculating the best way of diking and using cut-offs. That matter was discussed, I understand, just the other day when Premier Campbell and his officials were down here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, $89,700.	*
John Alpheus Charlton: The 1953-54 report is out. Is the 1954-55 report out yet?


Robert McCubbin: The report is ready for tabling. As the hon. member knows, the minister must put his O.K. on it. It is in the hands of the minister. It has not been returned to us. As soon as it is it will be tabled by us.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will copies be sent to all members?


Robert McCubbin: They generally are, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Agriculture Mr. McCubbin: Earlier today I undertook to place on Hansard certain figures with respect to imports and exports of potatoes, and field inspections, also dealing with potatoes, as well as figures respecting hog carcasses graded. These tables are as follows:
POTATOES (000 bus.)
		Crop Year
		July 1-June 30
TABLESTOCK		1954-55
EXPORTS (Total)		
U.S.A			
Bermuda 			
Puerto Rico ..		 63	
Bahamas 			 33	
(1) IMPORTS 			
UNITED STATES	TARIFF-37 If	per 100 lbs.
on the first million	bushels-175* per 100 lbs. on	
imports in excess of one million bushels. CANADIAN TARIFF-37i t per 100 lbs. June 15- July 31. Aug. 1-June 14 free.

[Stage Direction]
EXPORTS (Total)	 2,314
U.S.A			 1,384
Cuba 			 227
Venezuela 			 285
Uruguay 			 294
(1) IMPORTS	 67
(1) to April 30.
UNITED STATES TARIFF-37U per 100 lbs. on the first 21 million bushels-75< per 100 lbs. on imports in excess of 21 million bushels. CANADIAN TARIFF-free.

[Stage Direction]
Acres Passed and Production by Class Acres Passed
Prince Edward	Foundation	Certified	TotalIsland 	...14,085-50	9,977-25	24,062-75Nova Scotia 	... 31800	139-00	457-00New Brunswick	.. 6,313-50	12,970 -00	19,283-50Quebec 	.. 1,605-20	587-50	2,173-70Ontario 	... 1,233-82	345-33	1,579-15Manitoba 	... 278-65	125-35	404-00Saskatchewan ..	... 68-10	17-50	85-60Alberta 	... 812-40	94-10	906-50British Columbia	.. 1,425-13	309-62	1,734-75Total 	24,546-65	50,686-95
Production in Bushels, 1954
	Foundation	Certified	Total
Prince Edward			
Island 	....3,081,746	2,219,346	5,301,092Nova Scotia 	.... 117,728	53,865	171,593New Brunswick	....1,628,805	3,339,310	4,968,115Quebec 	125,400	478,115Ontario 	62,850	337,545Manitoba 	
50,950	20,800	71,750Saskatchewan ..	.... 9,350	1,800	11,150Alberta 	.... 129,473	7,737	137,210British Columbia	.. 433,190	89,044	522,234Total 	6,078,652	5,920,152	11,998,804
Supply-External Affairs
SUMMARY OF HOG CARCASSES PERCENTAGES, 1954	GRADED	BYA	B1	B2British Columbia 	39-62	3-75Alberta 	44-26	3-80Saskatchewan 	
21-88	38-29	4-85Manitoba 	41-16	4-83Ontario 	
29-97	46-83	2-32Quebec 	
29-85	44-16	4-69New Brunswick 	30-27	6-45Nova Scotia 	29-54	5-14Prince Edward Island	
53-64	29-35	2-91Totals 	
25-95	44-01	3-60
Edward Turney Applewhaite: That completes agriculture. We shall now deal with the Department of External Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department and missions abroad-
92. Departmental administration, $3,731,631.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: This item will be found on page 16 of the main estimates, the details commencing on page 172. Shall this resolution carry?


Mr. Nesbitt:: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the minister has any statement he would care to make at this time in respect to the department?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I shall be glad to hear any general observations that might occur to hon. members, then possibly I could deal with the questions raised in those observations. If that is agreeable to the committee I will be glad to proceed on those lines, because of course I made a fairly comprehensive statement to the committee on external affairs, which also went through the estimates very carefully.
While of course there are members of the house who have not the privilege-if I may call it that-of membership on the committee, the records of that committee have been available. If hon. members wish to bring up any special points or general matters on this item I shall be glad to deal with them, but if the committee preferred I could say a word or two now.


John Horne Blackmore: I would prefer to have the minister give us a statement now.


Mr. Low:: I would think the committee-at least the members on this side of the house- might prefer to have some statement from the minister as the basis for discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that is the view of all of us. After all, there have been some developments since the time the minister made his statements in the special committee on external affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to carry on in that way. I am not by any means-and I know the committee would not

expect me-going to make a review of the general international situation; but, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said, there have been some recent important developments. Possibly I can mention them, all the more so because certain questions have been asked of me in the house in the last day or two and I said when my estimates came up I would deal with them.
Since I last spoke, indeed since I appeared before the committee on external affairs not very many weeks ago, the improvement in the international atmosphere has, I think it is fair to say, continued. There has been now for many months an easing of tension which has reflected itself in international meetings that have taken place recently. Whether this change-and I have said this before in the house-is merely a matter of tactics on the other side or whether it represents a change in long-range policy, I do not know. Nor do I think it would be wise to attempt to come to any conclusion on this matter. It would, I think, be premature to assume that the danger of conflict which has existed now between the two worlds for many years has been removed, or indeed sensibly decreased.
While we must be careful and must remain on guard, it would also be, I think, very shortsighted and unwise if we did not take advantage of every opportunity-and there have been opportunities recently-to broaden and deepen this improvement in the international situation which has taken place. In the Far East there has been some easing of tension. There has developed in a very dangerous part of the world now, the Formosa straits, what one might call a de facto ceasefire. Efforts have been made by governments not committed to either side in this world controversy, governments which have sometimes been called neutralists-I am thinking of the government of India and the government of Burma, and I am also thinking of the secretary general of the United Nations -efforts have been made to mediate certain outstanding differences that have for some time now persisted between the communist government of China and other governments, particularly the government of the United States. But that area of the Far East and the Formosa straits remains a danger area, and no one can rest easy as long as the two Chinese governments face each other in hard and bitter hostility, with forces at grips at and about the offshore islands, islands that are only a few miles off the coast of China.
In Europe the improvement in the atmosphere which I have been talking about has culminated this week in a meeting at the summit, as it is called, at Geneva, which

ended this afternoon. There were very great expectations and hopes aroused by this meeting of the heads of the four governments, and there will be those who will say that those hopes and those expectations have not been realized. But I think everyone who has been following the course of international events in recent years, and who has been guided by experience and not by emotion in these matters, must have realized from the time this meeting was called that it would be unrealistic to expect important developments out of one meeting at the summit, in the sense that problems would be solved and difficulties removed.
What has happened this week at Geneva- and I think this is something that might give us all cause for real satisfaction-is that problems have been identified, positions have been clarified and machinery has been set up for the diplomatic negotiation of those problems in the months ahead through the foreign ministers of the four great powers.
In that sense the Geneva meeting has been most valuable and encouraging. It has not solved the problems-and I myself never thought it would-but it has taken the first right step on what might become a road along which progress can be made in solving these problems. Any hon. member who has followed what has been going on at Geneva this week will, I know, be struck by the fact that while problems have been clarified to some extent, while machinery has been set up and views have been exchanged, the problems are still there. As far as I can gather there has not been very much alteration in the fundamental policies on the other side in respect of such things as the unification of Germany and the limitation of armaments.
What has happened is that the presentation of the case by the other side-I think we must all welcome this, especially those of us who have been subjected to the other type of presentation-has been more affable. That is all to the good. I think we can take some satisfaction at least from this change of atmosphere which may lead to something more important now that the process of negotiation has begun. Personally I hope for a continuation of this process through the foreign ministers and through other mechanisms inside and outside of the United Nations which may be set up or which have already been set up. I hope that in this process the negotiators will not be subjected to such publicity, exciting publicity, as that which has been reflected by the presence at Geneva this week of between 1,500 and 2,000 press, radio and television correspondents. I agree, however, that on this particular occasion at a meeting held at the summit one can expect that kind of attention.
Supply-External Affairs
In other words, what has happened at Geneva is the beginning of a long process which we hope will in the end result in the solution of some of the problems that divide the world, which if they are not solved will result in danger to all. No one meeting at the summit will solve these problems. A multitude of meetings below the summit, official and non-official, will be required. That process has begun and we are hoping that it will be satisfactorily concluded. It will require, on our side, patience and strength and unity.
Before the Geneva meeting began, just a week ago today, I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the NATO council in Paris at which the 15 foreign ministers of the NATO governments were present. At that meeting -I think this is the process of consultation at its best; it is one of the things we hoped NATO would be used for-the three foreign ministers who were going to Geneva told those representing the other 12 member states quite frankly and quite fully their hopes and their fears about Geneva, their plans and their policies, and gave us an opportunity to express our views.
In no sense did those three act at Geneva for the other 12, as we had our responsibilities to our own parliaments and governments. They could not, of course, be delegated by a NATO council meeting in Paris. But that meeting did give us a chance to hear of their plans and policies, to comment on them, to give them our own views. In that sense it was valuable. It was also an interesting and useful indication of the unity of the countries making up the NATO coalition. On the eve of the Geneva conference I think that may have been wise and of some value because the Geneva discussions have shown that one of the primary objectives of the Soviet union and its friends is to weaken, or indeed to break up, that coalition. That is why I said last Saturday in Paris that NATO was not negotiable.
When I said that I did not mean that the deployment, the level of armaments, or the uses to which forces could be put and all that sort of thing were not negotiable. It may be part of the general price we will have to pay for a true peace settlement. That sort of thing can be discussed with anybody at NATO or outside of NATO. But NATO itself as a regional organization for collective security is not negotiable; its existence is not up for negotiation as long as there is no better way through the United Nations to guarantee our security collectively.
At London before and after the NATO meeting I had the opportunity to discuss

Supply-External Affairs developments with the foreign minister and other members of the United Kingdom government.
While I have mentioned the Geneva conference and NATO I would not want to overlook one other useful meeting in recent weeks, the meeting at San Francisco to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the United Nations. I think that meeting turned out to be a very good and valuable development because it focused, and there was need to focus at this time, the attention of the world on the United Nations and its achievements about which we do not always hear so much, as well as its failures about which we always hear more; about its limitations as well as its possibilities.
The words used most often in the 72 speeches to which we listened at the San Francisco conference-71 in my case, because I made one myself-were "stocktaking" and "rededication". We took stock of the past and we looked to the future. Practically without exception, and this also applies to the delegations from the other side of the iron curtain, every statement ended with an expression of support for the United Nations as the indispensable and universal agency for the solution of disputes and the removal of difficulties, as the indispensable agency for international co-operation.
If it could only do the work it was meant to do ten years ago when we set it up we would not be talking today about NATO or conferences at the summit, because we would not need them. It may be that one day we will be able to use that world organization as it was meant to be used. Until that time we will be well advised, in so far as political collective security is concerned, to continue our support for regional organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to keep them strong and united, to do our very best to convince those who fear these organizations that they are defensive in character, that they have no aggressive intent against anybody. If conditions improve, if there is more trust and confidence in the world than unfortunately is now the case, then, but only then, we will be able to modify our attitude toward these regional defensive collective organizations, especially if the work which they now do can be done through the United Nations.
On the whole, then, I would say that the last two or three months have given us cause not for exultation, not for unreasonable expectation, but for sober encouragement. The processes of negotiation between the two worlds have now begun. Some imaginative proposals have been put forward, especially the one by the President of the United States


the day before yesterday in respect to disarmament. That is a key subject, as it has been for many years, and it is an evidence of our good intentions.
All this has been hopeful and has been helpful. If we can continue on our side that process which we have begun, not merely relying on our strength and our unity but also on our determination to achieve the one objective which matters most in the hydrogen age, namely peace; if we subordinate everything to that objective and maintain a realistic sense of balance, not being too excited or encouraged when things seem to go right- sometimes dramatically so-and not getting too depressed or downcast when things seem to be going wrong; and if we can maintain the essential unity with our friends which we have built up over these years, then I think we can look forward to the immediate future with more confidence than we could a year ago today.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the opening of the discussion of the estimates of his department will be welcomed by the members of this house for several reasons. One is that we had already been informed that a statement would be made at this time when a reference to the proposals at Geneva had been made a few days ago. The other is the fact that it provides the opportunity to bring us up to date with regard to these international discussions upon which, in a large measure, all our hopes must depend.
It is not our intention to discuss the estimates at any length. The estimates were referred to a committee and they have been discussed extensively before that committee. Without suggesting that all matters relating to these estimates have been dealt with to our satisfaction, it is a fact that the opportunity to discuss them has been presented in that way, and we have indicated our belief that great advantage will be obtained if the estimates of all departments can be discussed in the same way as much as possible.
I wish to make reference to some statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because it seems to me that in these dramatic days of the present week there may have been, on the one hand, a danger of too great hopes of great achievement with regard to the issues that are so important to all of us and, on the other hand, some tendency to be discouraged too readily by the failure to present any positive form of statement that there is a solution of any of these great problems. It is only necessary to point out that under our system of government it is not possible for the government of Britain, the United States or France to reach

final conclusions at a meeting of this kind. The proposals that were put forward-and some of them were dramatic in their possibilities-would have gone back to the legislative bodies of the different countries for consideration and approval in any event.
It does seem that the most striking suggestion that was made, and one which has caught the imagination of the people throughout the world generally, was the suggestion by President Eisenhower the day before yesterday that in addition to the blueprints showing the disposition of defence production and arrangements, there should be afforded an opportunity to fly over the different countries where preparations are being made and in that way examine the country itself, as people have come to examine the ground from the air, to confirm the information already received.
I do not think there is anything unduly startling about that proposition. Anything short of that procedure would not be effective in any general plan of disarmament. Anything that did not ensure full information might, in fact, be only a trap and might invite one country or one group of nations to disarm in good faith while a nation that had aggressive tendencies might do the very opposite. It does indicate, however, that on this occasion, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, the heads of state of the four nations have discussed their problems in an atmosphere which seemed to produce a more satisfactory exchange of ideas than has occurred for many years.
The meeting terminated this afternoon, as has already been mentioned. There have been definite decisions. One of the definite decisions was that there will be a meeting of the foreign ministers in Geneva next October to consider problems of German unification and European security. That in itself is a positive achievement. At the discussions which took place it became clear that German reunification is the No. 1 problem which must be dealt with. Unquestionably it is associated with European security and, in fact, with all security.
Another positive decision that was reached before adjournment today was the reference to the United Nations subcommittee on disarmament of a series of disarmament proposals; and the subcommittee of the United Nations on disarmament was called on to meet in New York on August 29 to proceed with this work.
These are positive and definite decisions by this gathering of heads of state at the summit. The foreign ministers were directed 50433-422J
Supply-External Affairs to study the results of the proposed disarmament negotiations and to seek ways to bring about progressive elimination of barriers between the east and the west. As Canada is a member of the subcommittee along with Britain, the United States, France and Russia we are, of course, immediately brought into the results of these positive decisions.
This afternoon the Prime Minister of Britain expressed what undoubtedly must be a very general opinion throughout the world, when he said that these big four talks at the summit have brought about a better climate than that prevailing at any time since the second world war for proceeding to work effectively on proposals to solve east-west differences which have been dividing the nations. In the closing session President Eisenhower of the United States said this:
The prospects of a lasting peace with justice, well-being and broader freedom are brighter and the dangers of the overwhelming tragedy of modern war less.
Marshal Bulganin made the longest of the closing speeches, and said the Soviet union was disappointed that some topics which were of importance to them had not been raised. These include Asia, the Far East and the red Chinese bid for a seat in the United Nations, as well as discussion of the Formosa question. Premier Faure of France said the spirit which governed the debates and the mutual understanding which resulted will leave the brightest mark on international relations and will have a happy influence on their evolution.
These were positive statements made today by these men who have met in an atmosphere of friendliness and in a manner which certainly has not been common in recent years at meetings of representatives of these nations. President Eisenhower, in welcoming the spirit of friendliness in the speeches of Marshal Bulganin and Prime Minister Eden, who preceded him, did say that he hoped his silence respecting certain statements of Marshal Bulganin would not be interpreted as acquiescence on his part with any of those statements. I mention that particularly because I think as we discuss these subjects, which now will become subjects for discussion by representatives of the Canadian government and particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we should remember that there were very important silences in the meeting at Geneva that has just ended.
One of the subjects that can never, I think, be disregarded, is the whole principle of security. The No. 1 question placed before the conference at Geneva was German unification. Russia emphasized that there must

Supply-External Affairs be European security before there could be talk of German unification. I submit that at this time, when we are discussing a subject that will be reviewed well before we meet again by the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaking on behalf of the Canadian government, we should point out something that emerges so clearly, the lesson of what happened after the first world war. That lesson is that problems are not solved by disregarding them.
When we talk about European security I think it is important that we remember that other terms of security have also been discussed. The extent to which any arrangement for European security is going to carry conviction and confidence to the governments of the nations of the earth, as well as the people behind those governments, will depend upon the measure of frankness with which the arrangements for security already made have been carried into effect. For that reason I think we must go back to the meeting in San Francisco this year commemorating the tenth anniversary of the signing of the charter of the United Nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that whatever hopeful results there may have been from this meeting, the problems still remain.
I submit that we would be unrealistic in discussing German unification and terms of European security unless we remember that terms of security affecting many other nations were discussed at San Francisco ten years ago. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, and properly so, that we should be guided by experience and not by emotion. The natural desire to accept the good that has come from these meetings should not hide from us certain realities that have not yet been faced. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us that at San Francisco this year two words that were constantly repeated were "stocktaking" and "rededication". That is right.
I dislike appearing to stress over and over again something that seems to me fundamental in any discussion of security and international relations at this time. If we do make an honest stocktaking of the international situation we surely must start with the acceptance of the reality that in spite of the assurance at San Francisco in June of 1945 that the nations which were signing the charter, including Russia, were joined in the desire to preserve the integrity of international boundaries and the self-determination of nations, we now see scores of millions of people enslaved throughout the world by Russian aggression, contrary to the declaration in the charter of the United Nations in

1945. That is one reality that is part of the stocktaking that must precede any frank discussion of European or other security.
We should remember that this was no general inclusion of broad terms of national self-determination. A few months earlier, in February of 1945, Stalin had given a solemn undertaking that the countries in Europe occupied by the Russian armies would be permitted to choose their own governments by free elections. That principle was reasserted in the charter of the United Nations signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945. Those pledges have been violated by Russia. Yet they were recognized at that time as the very foundation of any plan for national security.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if there is one message that should go to the Secretary of State for External Affairs from this house prior to his discussion of these subjects in New York in August, it is that the stocktaking should include that reality. How can the people of one part of Europe place greater faith in agreements for national security than the people of other parts of Europe? If Poland, the Baltic states, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Hungary and the other nations now under Russian control find the undertakings given by Russia ten years ago utterly valueless, then what reason have any other nations adjoining them to have more confidence that the terms of any agreement made today will be carried out?
I submit that this is the time to ask our government to point out at the meeting of the United Nations subcommittee in New York in August that along with any discussion of European security there should be a stocktaking in regard to the security or lack of security of those nations which were promised free elections by the head of the Russian government in 1945. I do not see how any assurances given today can have any real sanction unless those undertakings are carried out.
I think we should say, as Canadians, that this subject is part and parcel of any general plan of security. Does the freedom of the people of Poland, of the people of the Ukraine, and all those other countries that were promised free votes by the solemn pledge of the head of the Russian government, mean nothing to us? Are we less concerned about those promises than about other promises? We were also parties to the charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco. If we must tag some promises which are to be regarded as solemn and others which are to be regarded as not so solemn, then where does security begin and where does security end?

The Secretary of State for External Affairs has repeated a statement he made about NATO not being negotiable. I believe that was a very apt statement. I think we might well say that freedom is not negotiable. I believe we must decide, as we thought the nations had decided at San Francisco in 1945, that freedom is indivisible. If we are prepared to negotiate the terms of freedom and disregard our solemn promise on an earlier occasion that all nations would have this right, then I doubt the real sanction to the promises that would be made today. Canada, with the other nations, went to war in September, 1939, to support the principle that freedom is not divisible. It went to war in support of the principle that freedom is not negotiable. I think the gathering that will meet at the end of August in New York should reassert that principle and rededicate itself to the opening paragraph of the charter of the United Nations.
We should remember also that when we talk about terms of reunification we are talking about the most explosive subject that we can discuss today. I do not think there was any course open but to agree to the rearmament of Western Germany, but we should recognize that the moment we agreed to that we accepted the full consequences of that rearmament. Germany has made such a recovery as no nation has made in all history. Out of the ashes they have emerged as the most dynamic industrial power in continental Europe at this time. Now they will begin to devote that tremendous industrial energy to the production of arms. They will start from scratch. In doing so they will have all the advantages of the developments the western nations have devised in the way of weapons. From past experience we can be confident that it will not be very long before Germany will be improving upon the designs placed at her disposal, and that once again there will be weapons of the greatest power emerging from German workshops.
What happens then? What happens five years from now, six years at the outside, when a rearmed Western Germany looks to Eastern Germany which will be still under Russian control if there has not been unification at that time? Can anyone doubt the temptation there will be for Germany to seek reunification under other terms than those which are explicit in the Paris agreements signed a few months ago? I am confident Chancellor Adenauer intends to carry out this agreement, but Chancellor Adenauer is not immortal. Some other chancellor may be called upon to make decisions. Let us remember that at this stage after the first world war Stresemann was head of the German government. There
Supply-External Affairs was a democracy in Germany and the Weimar republic was showing every sign of carrying democracy into action. It was not many years later that the democracy which had promised so much had disappeared under a nazi government, with all the terror and all the horrors that followed.
These things must be faced today; the unification of Germany and a definition of what we mean by the unification of Germany, whether it merely includes the unification of Western Germany with the present eastern zone or something more. Those are things to decide at this stage, and not leave unsettled until Germany has regained more military power. Another lesson that emerges from history is that any nation which develops a dynamic military and industrial expansion is not likely to stop that development no matter what the limitations may be. This is the time, therefore, to reach agreement on what reunification means, and also to reassess the situation; to have a real stocktaking, and to be sure that no terms of international security in Europe or elsewhere are going to inspire too much confidence unless the basic promise of national self-determination contained in the charter of the United Nations is reasserted by nations which have truly dedicated themselves to what was undertaken at that time.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that there should be patience, strength and unity. We will all agree with those terms. I think also there must be, as he has said, a stocktaking, but a stocktaking which in all reality faces the situation that is before us. Then having taken stock we should seek to base our plans for the future upon the real undertakings of the United Nations Organization, which offers the one real hope of peace to this world today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We in this group, Mr. Chairman, welcome the statement made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With him, with all members of this house, and with Canadians generally we welcome what has taken place in Geneva this week. We recognize that the basic problems facing our world have not been settled at Geneva, but it is true that some of these problems have been faced, have been identified and have been referred to the appropriate bodies for further study. Even on that score we think there has been progress at Geneva this week.
However, like the Secretary of State for External Affairs we feel that perhaps the most important result of the meeting at the summit has been an improvement in the international climate. To use the minister's own words, even if there has been only an improvement

Supply-External Affairs in affability that is something to welcome. We are glad the four heads of state were at last able to get together; and we believe there is reality and substance in the improved climate that seems to have resulted from these important meetings.
Somehow or another it seems to me that the most important development of this past week, or of the past several weeks-because the meetings at the summit involved more than a week; they involved also weeks of preparation for those meetings-is the realization that seems to have come over those in high places that in this atomic and hydrogen world we simply have to find a way to avoid war. To us it is highly significant that the statement signed by the late Albert Einstein, and the group of scientists, happened to be made just before the meetings at Geneva were held. And it does seem to us that the warning given to us by those scientists had some effect on the thinking of those who met at Geneva, and on the discussions that took place.
We recognize that the world's problems still exist. We recognize that we must remain on guard. Nevertheless, it seems to me the Secretary of State for External Affairs was justified in being hopeful in what he said today. It is the task of those of us who speak in public, either here or elsewhere, those of us who have the task of giving leadership to our people in this country, to try to push forward that hopeful attitude. It seems to me that the idea held by the man in the street, the idea that somehow in this day and age it is not just a case of who can win the next war but rather that the next war must be avoided, has found expression officially at the highest possible level. Therefore, we think we have a right to be hopeful, as a result of the meetings which have taken place this week.
I should like to say, in the same vein, that we are glad to know that if he can arrange it the Secretary of State for External Affairs intends to pay a visit to the Soviet union some time before the year is out. We hope also the government will give favourable consideration to the idea of exchanges of visits between various people in that country and this. I place emphasis on the word "exchanges" because it seems to me it is desirable not only that more members of parliament and more Canadians generally should have a chance to visit that country, but also highly desirable that we persuade delegations from the Soviet union to visit our country. Surely it is axiomatic that if we can get to know each other better, whether through meetings of heads of states or through ordinary people seeing each other and each other's countries, it will further the 

cause of mutual understanding and help to get rid of some of the fears that have bedevilled our world for such a long time.
We were pleased by the imaginative suggestion put forward by President Eisenhower at Geneva a couple of days ago. Whether or not that suggestion in its exact terms is carried out, we hope there will be a very serious and determined effort on behalf of all nations to get rid of the fears and misunderstandings which have divided us in the years since the end of world war II.
So, as I have already indicated, we welcome this improved climate, this better atmosphere. We believe it is the job of the minister, the job of all of us, to take advantage of that improved climate and do nothing that will throw any clouds in the way, but rather to do our best to further the cause to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred in his closing words, the cause of peace.
Perhaps it is highly significant, when one talks about a change in atmosphere, that we have come once again to a time when we can use the word "peace" without having to apologize. I think hon. members know what I have in mind when I say that. Surely that is our objective. Surely the frightening prospect of what atomic or hydrogen war would do to mankind makes us realize that peace must be our objective, if we are to remain alive. And it may be that out of this will come the possibility of our doing more than just keeping civilization alive, the possibility of using the tremendous forces now at our disposal to lift civilization to a higher standard of security and well-being than we have yet known.
We were also pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the reference he did to the meetings held at San Francisco commemorating the tenth anniversary of the United Nations. Certain jocular remarks were made about those meetings before they were held, particularly in the committee on external affairs, suggesting that the meetings would be a bit boring, that they would consist of just a succession of speeches by delegates representing the various member states. In fact, the meetings were very interesting. It was significant that the radio and television networks gave such extensive coverage to those meetings, and that people were glad to listen to and watch the proceedings at San Francisco on this important occasion.
I wholly endorse the minister's statement that it was good at this time to hold these meetings and thereby to focus attention on the United Nations. For, after all, I believe it is fair to say that the government regards

the United Nations as the cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy. Our hope for peace, our hope for avoiding atomic or hydrogen war, and our hope for a higher standard of security and well-being for our people depend, in the long run, not on regional pacts, necessary though they may be under certain conditions, but rather upon the achievement of a system of universal collective security.
We accept the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs today with regard to the present necessity of regional pacts such as NATO. But I was very pleased to hear him say that if we can strengthen the United Nations to the point where it offers the kind of security we want, it will. be possible to modify our attitude toward regional pacts. It seems to me those were very important words used by the minister this afternoon; and we in this group urge the government to do everything it possibly can to strengthen the United Nations to the end that the day might come, and come soon, when we will have a greater degree of universal collective security than we have at the present time.
Not only do we feel that support for the United Nations, which the government affirms to be the cornerstone of its foreign policy, should be pursued with respect to security arrangements, but we also feel very strongly that all possible support should be given to the various specialized agencies, the various social and humanitarian programs which are sponsored under the United Nations.
I know the government will say this is its policy and its practice, and we are prepared to commend the government on the extent to which it supports bodies like the world health organization, the international labour organization, and many others which are related to the economic and social council of the United Nations. But I think it is fair to say that we still have a long way to go in developing our aid programs, putting them on the kind of basis that will really remove the causes of war and help to share the possibility of a decent life amongst all the peoples of the world.
I for one-and I am sure others feel the same way-was impressed by the remarks made before the committee on external affairs by an outstanding Canadian, Dr. H. L. Keenleyside, who is now the director general of the United Nations technical assistance administration. It was a very moving story that Dr. Keenleyside was able to tell us of what this administration has been able to do. And yet, despite the careful and diplomatic way in which Dr. Keenleyside presented the case, there was clear there between the lines his feeling that a lot more could be done
Supply-External Affairs if only more money were available from all countries that belong to the United Nations. In this house we have a great deal of respect for the opinion and the judgment of Dr. Keenleyside, and we feel that what he said with regard to the United Nations technical assistance program should be given serious consideration; and this applies also to the Colombo plan and to other plans of this type.
We would like to stress once again our belief that a great deal could be done for the cause of world peace by increasing the exchange of students, by bringing to this country more people from the underdeveloped parts of the world, so we might impart to them the skills and the abilities that we have learned in this country. These things have become trite, Mr. Chairman. They are recognized as truisms. But so often we do not pay the attention we might to things that are axiomatic.
There is an element of real urgency about this. Time is of the essence. If we really want to achieve the goal stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, namely that of subordinating everything to the objective of peace, we feel we have to get down to the basic underlying economic causes of world unrest. Yes, Canada is doing a great deal. Yes, I know there are Canadians -and all of us have received letters of this kind-who suggest that we should be doing certain things here at home before we give money or other things to people in other lands. Entirely apart from the moral or ethical principles involved in such a program, I suggest it is basic to the cause of peace that we greatly increase our efforts to help raise the living standards, economic security and social well-being of the world around us.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because we have had many discussions this session on external affairs, both in the House of Commons itself and in the committee on external affairs, we do not feel it is necessary to extend our remarks at this time. But we welcome what has been said today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and we want him to know that so far as this group are concerned we want every effort put into the program he has laid before us today, namely that of subordinating everything to the objective of peace so that instead of the frightening, awful prospect of another war, we might look forward to a day of peace, security, well-being and abundance, not just for the people of Canada but for the people of all the world.
I am sure the minister agrees with us in this. There is no other way to achieve peace for ourselves than by achieving it for all mankind. Canada is in a very strong position

Supply-External Affairs to play a part in such a campaign. The minister will have our full support in everything he does to press forward a real campaign for peace.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the minister for the statement he presented to the committee today, bringing us up to date on developments that have taken place in world affairs since last we had a chance to debate external relations.
The committee on external affairs, Mr. Chairman, did study quite thoroughly the estimates of the minister's department. We had every opportunity to question the minister and his officials about the details of the estimates. It will be remembered that during the year much time was spent by the committee on Bill No. 3, which gave many members a liberal course in hydrodynamics as well as in some other things. Since there was a pretty thorough study of the estimates, it would seem that at the present time there need not be a lengthy debate on external affairs.
There has been some change in the world situation since April, and the minister has indicated the change; but it does seem to me that change is not too significant. Well, at least it would not warrant a long speech on my part. I was interested in hearing the minister mention the improvement in the international atmosphere. He spoke of the easing of tension that had been reflected in the international meetings that have taken place of late, but he did realistically challenge the situation by saying we are not certain whether it indicates a change in tactics on the part of the other side, or whether it indicates the beginning of a change in long-range policy. Well, I too think it would be dangerous to assume that suddenly the Russians have abandoned their long-range policy. I do not think it would be wise at all for any of us to believe that the battle for men's minds will not go on unabated in spite of the fact that there have been some improvements in the international atmosphere.
This brings me to the four-power conference at Geneva. I cannot say, Mr. Chairman, that I looked forward to any great achievements as a consequence of that conference. We had our hopes, of course. We had our expectations, I suppose, the same as anyone else; but they were tempered by realism based on our experience in the past. It seems to me that about the only thing that could possibly come out of the Geneva conference at this time would be perhaps a little better opportunity for the application of some of the old style type of diplomacy, where the leaders would get together in an atmosphere


of friendliness, talk over the problems confronting the states of the world and perhaps lay the foundation for some of the understandings which we may not have had in the past. But, as I say, I am afraid I did not expect very much out of it. The minister says that machinery has been set up by the leaders of the four great powers which will carry on discussions in the months ahead. Probably something will be achieved, but he did state realistically that while the machinery was set up the problems were still there.
I was somewhat surprised two days ago when President Eisenhower made his proposal for a full exchange of blueprints of military establishments, and also full inspection methods on both sides. I wondered at the time whether it was based entirely on good will or whether there was not also some realism mixed up with it. I think perhaps President Eisenhower wants sincerely to lay the foundation for the kind of control of armaments, and perhaps even for disarmament, for which we have been hoping for a long time, but one could hardly be expected not to read into it some other possibility.
I wondered at the time if President Eisenhower might not have felt that the western powers stood to gain more than they would give. I wondered just how far Russian intelligence had succeeded in getting blueprints of what we have. Perhaps an exchange such as that suggested by President Eisenhower would not be giving them much they did not have already, and maybe would yield to us a lot that we did not have. If it were made with that end in view I suppose that it was pretty realistic. I am satisfied in my own mind that the Russians have known a lot more about what we were doing than perhaps some of us thought.
At any rate I have not felt at all pessimistic about the outlook. As other hon. members have said, I do believe the Geneva conference will doubtless pay dividends. I think in future we will be able to look back to it and say that it was at least another beginning of something that brought good to the nations of the world. I think at least the leaders themselves after these conferences will have removed some of the fear that may have bound them. I do not believe they are going to worry too much about Bertrand Russell and his party of scientists, whose statements were resurrected just before the conference. I think they have been generally realistic about things and have swept away a good many of the cobwebs that were built out of fear, and doubtless they will come forward now with some pretty realistic things.

It is my opinion that the western powers, during the past year and a half or two years especially, have won a major victory in the cold war. In my judgment they won it by standing together and rejecting successfully any attempts that were made by the other side to divide them on matters of policy. I think that was the term used by the minister and I believe it is a good term to use in speaking about those whom today we look upon as our adversaries. I do believe we have made considerable progress because we have stood together and have not let them divide us.
The minister suggested that in the days ahead we must go forward in patience, strength and unity. That is true, and we support him in that. We say to him, "Go to the conference in August; make your trip to Moscow this fall when it can be arranged; go into every negotiation you possibly can with the idea of continuing to promote good will abroad, but temper it with essential realism." The minister has not indicated in anything he said today that he is unrealistic about the world situation, and we support him in the attitude he has taken.
But I do think while we are promoting good will abroad in an effort to further improve the whole atmosphere and further ease the tension that exists, we must not lose sight of the price that might have to be paid if too many of us continue to be imbued with the idea of appeasement for averting war. I think it is all very well to go to all these international conferences and negotiations with a view to preventing war, but we must also remember what might be the cost of anything we might do on our side to prevent war. I would rather stand up and fight and be completely destroyed in an effort to retain my liberty than adopt an attitude toward the necessity of being ready to fight that might give my liberty away by default. I think that is the attitude we have to take.
The Russians are realistic, and we have to be realistic. I think many of our people have been just a bit soft in the head in the past several years since the end of world war II. We have been too much influenced by communist propaganda. We have become the victims of fear instead of being imbued with faith. It seems to me that it is about time we cut away all these cobwebs of fear so we can see realistically what we are up against. I do believe that if we go forward in faith, determined to preserve our liberties, determined to stand together in unity, we will not be activated by fear. If we go into any negotiations with the idea of averting war at all costs, then in my opinion we will be endangering ourselves and this nation and other nations as well.
Supply-External Affairs
I would suggest to the minister that he do everything he can in the name of Canada and the western powers to avoid war, but let us not take any steps which might lead to surrender. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised an important point when he said we should be spending more time seeking out the causes of war and doing something about them. Little real effort has been made in the past 50 or 60 years in trying to find the real causes of war instead of the alleged causes. As a parliament and as individuals we should be spending as much time as we possibly can in studying deeply and finding out the causes of war and how those causes can be rooted out and eliminated. When we do that I feel certain we can remove all fear of war, but not until we go into it with determination to clear away those causes that might be found, let us say, in our selfishness, in our greed and determination to impose upon nations of the world our views with respect to trade. By that I mean the feeling that we must have a favourable balance of trade with other nations, and mugt impose upon them in trade treaties such things as the unconditional most favoured nation clause that does not give them a chance. I think we must get down to a study of these things and find out how far they cause international tension and destroy any good will we might have built up as a consequence of our efforts in international conferences.
I think it is necessary for us to continue to develop in strength. We must not let down. It seems to me that no easing of tension should justify any relaxation in our efforts to build ourselves up in strength so we can stand with the other western nations in an effort to present to the other side the most formidable unity. I would rather have them say, "Let us not go up against those fellows, because they are terrible" than say, "I do not know, but I think perhaps the best way to get at these fellows is just to scare them a little bit about atomic or hydrogen warfare, and then we can whip them".
I think we must present a terrible front. When I say "terrible" I mean one that presents the prospect of being terrible to any enemy who might think of coming up against us. They will not pick a fight with people who are strong, but they will certainly try to pick a fight quickly with those who are weak. We therefore stand with the minister in every effort he and his government may make to keep Canada strong and to help the other nations of the western world to be strong, and I refer to strength in every phase of our national and international existence.

Supply-External Affairs
In a speech with which I could agree as to almost every word, the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon spoke at some length about security and how the United Nations can fit into the whole program of security. I think there can be no serious talk of the United Nations doing the job that many millions of people have hoped it would be able to do until it is in a position to tackle the problem of security, with a view to bringing security not only to the big nations but also to those smaller nations that have been enslaved by the other side. I am thinking of such nations as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, the Ukraine and East Germany.
All those peoples and countries have been subjugated. Their present position indicates that the word of the communist nations just cannot be taken, that it does not mean much. Until they are ready to show a changed attitude toward those peoples and those countries and indicate that they are ready to negotiate for their security and their freedom, in a manner similar to that in which they negotiated with Austria, then it seems to me that the work of the United Nations will be somewhat fruitless in the field of security.
As has already been said by others, I believe the recent tenth anniversary meeting in San Francisco was a good thing. Focusing the attention of the world upon the United Nations was a good thing. Let us build up the feeling on the part of people everywhere that the United Nations can be made into the kind of agency that will eventually bring peace. Let us do that by all means. But at the same time let us be realistic about it. Let us look at the charter and see whether we cannot make in it some changes that will revitalize and rehabilitate the United Nations so it can become the type of organization we dream about.
I very much doubt that the United Nations assembly itself can ever really be the effective agency it ought to be until the representatives who go there are the representatives of the people instead of the representatives of governments of nations. The security council is a different thing, as are some of the other specialized agencies. But I should like to see at the United Nations assembly persons who are sent there by the peoples of the various countries of the world and who reflect the will, the desire, the aims and the hopes of those people rather than of just the governments themselves.
I have always felt the same way. I think I spoke in that same manner back in 1945, when the San Francisco charter was brought before the house for ratification. I feel that


sort of thing ought to govern our attitude toward the United Nations today. By all means let us do everything we can to build it into an agency that can really do an effective job in the international field.
We are happy, Mr. Chairman, to go along with the minister in his expressed desire to use patience, to go forward with the other western nations in unity, and to prepare for any negotiations from strength. We extend to him our good will in everything he undertakes to do along those lines.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask you to 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.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, like others I listened with interest this afternoon to the speech of the minister, and particularly to what he had to say about the meeting "at the summit" at Geneva. I think we would be more or less than human if we had not been a bit disappointed, notwithstanding the warnings we have had, including the wise warning from the minister himself about this time last week when he was in Paris. After all, since 1950 when Truman made what Churchill called the "valiant decision", we have had a good deal to encourage us, though we must also not forget the discouragements in Indochina and elsewhere. I suppose it was inevitable that we should allow our hopes to rise pretty high and, as I said, I think we would be either more or less than human today if we were not just a trifle disappointed.
But on the other hand we had better put that aside and think only of the encouraging signs. After all, as the minister has pointed out it is a step forward that on speaking of the Russians the word "affability" could be used. It is not a word I like much. However, it means courtesy, and that is a word I do like. Incidentally, I used to think that people like Ernest Bevin and others, who had to confer with the Russians in the days when a conference meant shouting at each other in vituperative terms, deserved some special kind of decoration for enduring what they had to endure. It must have been a tremendously pleasant change for those who were in Geneva this week to be able to talk to their counterparts in a civilized manner. I think Europe will also have taken note of the visit of the United States President and the British Prime Minister, not to speak of their ladies who evidently made their own considerable impression in Europe as well.

But I wish to say a word or two now on what the minister has called stocktaking. We are, I think, more or less reduced to the pedestrian level again. The minister has pointed out that as a result of what has taken place at Geneva, smaller and less importantlooking meetings will take place at which detailed advances can be made. Meantime we are back, as I say, at the pedestrian level, and I want to say a word or two about the United Nations because it seems to me from my small experience of it that it is in great danger of not being taken as seriously as it should.
We all remember what happened to the league of nations. I suppose it is fair to say that in the twenties and thirties we lost peace because we were bored with peace. Peace is a very dull thing when you are not in-what shall I say-a fever of apprehension about losing it. As I look back to the 1930's it is almost impossible not to give way to torture of the mind when one thinks of the occasions which were lost-in 1933 when Hitler came to power, in 1935 at the time of Abyssinia when so many nations played such an ignoble part, and I suppose most of all in 1936 when Hitler invaded the Rhineland. When we look back we know with virtual certainty that if there had been anyone with as much courage as Truman had in 1950 war would not have come, or at any rate would not have come in the way it did.
It is not worth pausing to torture our minds about the failure of the league, but I want to say a word about the United Nations. It seems to me it is more than ever important for it to move ahead on all fronts, not merely on the military front but on constructive lines. We know what they are. I am not going to take the time of the committee to dwell on them. We must go ahead, as the minister has said, with faith and hope; but I think it is tremendously important that the work of the United Nations should in every way possible be magnified. We failed in that regard with respect to the league. People were not interested in the league. Actually those who stood out in the community and tried to interest the ordinary voter in the league were almost made fun of. I can remember people like the late Sir Robert Falconer, president of the University of Toronto, the late N. W. Rowell, at one time Liberal leader in Ontario and subsequently minister in the union government, men who toiled at the task, but what thanks did they ever get? They were regarded almost as harmless cranks.
As I say, people were in effect bored with peace. They would not take any trouble about it, and so they lost it. Now we have
Supply-External Affairs the United Nations, and in one way you might say that the task of the United Nations is even harder because of the new and overwhelming dangers which face us. But on the other hand there is a hope that these new and overwhelming dangers may actually have the effect of making people at last wake up to the fact that peace is in danger, so they will try to do something about it.
I have one practical suggestion I wish to make about the United Nations. I was fortunate enough to be there a year ago last autumn and, I imagine like many other people who were there, I had two feelings. First of all, that never in all my life had I seen so much frustration, with committees meeting and reporting morning after morning after morning and really having nothing to report. On the other hand, I had the feeling that if this institution had not existed it should be invented at once, for the reason that it was worth while to keep a place going where the nations of the world could come and talk to each other and, haply, find out how to avoid dropping bombs on each other.
It is in that connection I have one practical suggestion to make. It seemed to me that the meetings of the United Nations suffered greatly from the fact that not many of the top flight people were there, or if they were there it was just "how do you do" and "good-bye". If my feeling as to the importance of the United Nations is not exaggerated- and perhaps it is keener today than it would have been if there had been greater success at Geneva-then we should be doing more about it than we are. I am not overlooking the fact that the news and radio services give us very good news coverage, but it is my opinion that somehow or other we have to make the ordinary citizen understand more about it, and personally I cannot think of anything more likely to do that than having the important people go there.
With all the burdens that are on the Prime Minister, with all the important duties he has, I cannot believe there is anything more important than for him to make the occasional visit to the United Nations. It is only a matter of a few hours. As for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I know has had a great deal to do with the United Nations and is highly regarded there, he has many duties to perform and it would be a bold man who would ask him to do more unless we were able to divide him into two or three instead of being one and indivisible. But I do suggest to him the importance of having the United Nations regarded as a place of more importance than it is now. I suggest to him that it is a top priority task,
6684	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs and in view of all the tasks the United Nations has to do and the vast importance of the part it can play if it attains the status it should attain, I put this forward as a practical suggestion for his consideration.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am unable to share the views expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood and the Leader of the Opposition who seem to have been disappointed with the results of the meeting at the summit. I am sure no one expected that all the problems of the world would be solved this past week. I think it is significant and encouraging that this meeting has taken place. A year ago very few of us expected that within a year it would have been possible for this meeting to have been held. I think we have to reach the conclusion very soon that either we have to fight the Russians or we have to live in the same world with them. Very few people in their right senses consider that we are going to fight the Russians. If we are not, I think we have to explore the field of conciliation, even although there are many difficult situations to solve.
The hon. member for Lethbridge, has indicated that he is not speaking unless there is some fool speech made this evening. While some of my speeches might be in that category, I am sure my remarks tonight will not be described by him in that way. I have two points I want to make. Something over a year ago, when the Prime Minister was making his tour of the world, I suggested he should include a visit to Moscow. The suggestion was accepted by the Prime Minister in the spirit in which it was given, but he was not able to change his plans. This suggestion received very favourable comment in the Canadian papers.
Later I suggested that since the Prime Minister could not go, the minister of external affairs should arrange a visit some time and take with him the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of our group, the leader of the Social Credit group and some other members of the house. I am very glad that while the minister is not arranging to take a group with him, he is arranging to visit Moscow before the end of the year.
We all feel that on the whole the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs has done an outstanding job throughout the years.
I think the members of all political parties feel that although he has been subject to criticism by the Russians and he has been criticized by Senator McCarthy, somewhere in between these two conflicting views the minister must have some virtues.
So far as Canada is concerned, we feel that we should be able to make a worth-while


contribution in this world of strain. For more than a hundred years we have been able to live with our immediate neighbour without any wars. We have never thought of establishing provincial armies. People from a great many countries have come to Canada and have been able to build up a pride in our common objectives. We have a long connection with Great Britain and with France. We have two very powerful neighbours, Russia to the north and the United States to the south. With our various attributes and with our strategic position, I think we should accept the challenge which is ours and make the best contribution possible.
Before this item passes I should like the minister to make some report to us on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding an exchange of visitors. While the minister was away there was an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail, reprinted in the Ottawa Citizen of July 19, which is very brief. It says:
Why so solemn about Russians?
Need we really be so precise, so solemn, so anxious, in our dealings with Russia? Have we no sense of humour or self-confidence where that country is concerned? The supreme soviet has offered, in effect, to send a group of its members to Canada. Let Canada's parliament accept the offer, if only out of curiosity to see what Russian parliamentarians look like. And let it, in return, send a group of its own members to Russia.
We do not see how such visits can do anybody a particle of harm. And it is possible, at least, that over a period they might do some good. Such possibilities, in today's world, are all we have to work with. We should learn to use them with wisdom, with patience, and not least with good nature.
I think the time has now arrived when the Secretary of State for External Affairs should indicate to the house whether Canada could not accept this invitation in good faith and proceed to make the necessary arrangements. I know it is an unusual invitation. We have a NATO organization and we have a commonwealth parliamentary association, but we do not seem to have an organization in our parliament to deal with this particular sort of invitation. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs might indicate whether or not Canada should accept or reject this invitation. In my view, and in the view of the editorial writer of the Globe and Mail, this invitation might be accepted.
The other point I want to raise is in connection with the need for an information section in the minister's department to deal particularly with the work of the United Nations and the specialized organizations. On several occasions I have mentioned the difficulty I have had in getting information concerning what is being done by FAO, WHO

or ILO. The minister's very efficient information office refers me to the Department of Agriculture or national health and welfare, if it is a health problem. When I get to national health and welfare and the minister is out of the city, the officials of that department refer me back to external affairs. If it is a Colombo plan problem they refer me to Mr. Cavell's department, and if Mr. Cavell is out of the city I am referred back to external affairs.
I think we need to recognize that while in Canada there is not any very serious opposition to the work of the United Nations or the specialized agencies of the United Nations, there is very real opposition in the United States. Anyone who goes to New York is surprised to find the number of publications that are trying to break down the opposition to these specialized agencies and the United Nations in general. While Canada has done something in this connection, our contribution to FAO is just over 2 cents per person per year; to WHO it is under 2 cents; to UNESCO under 2 cents; to ILO under 2 cents, and I think all these organizations are worth more than 2 cents per person per year. If they are, I think the Canadian people must be given more information regarding the problems with which these important organizations are dealing.
I think we should have information regarding the work our Canadian scientists are doing. I have been trying for over a year to find out exactly what sort of work Professor Hardy is doing with FAO in Ceylon. I think it is a pity our Saskatchewan newspapers have not been able to get more information and more particulars regarding his work, which I am sure is outstanding. As a matter of fact, several people who have been out to Ceylon have spoken to me in the very highest terms of the work Professor Hardy has done. I feel it is a great pity it is regarded as such a secret, and that as a result his friends in Saskatchewan cannot get information on the type of work that is done. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare or external affairs should make available to the Canadian people information concerning the type of work that is being done by Canadians in different parts of the world who are working with WHO.
Before this item carries I hope the secretary of state will make some comments regarding this editorial that has appeared in the two newspapers and my own suggestion, and something to indicate whether or not he might not get more personnel and more money in order to give the Canadian people better information regarding the work of the specialized agencies of the United Nations
Supply-External Affairs that will tie into the needs of the Canadian people, and make them better acquainted with the problems that are being faced, and also to give them more satisfaction as a result of the work their fellow Canadians have been able to do.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to an article in the July 8 issue of U.S. News and World Report which tells how the United States, during the past year, has come to realize what the communists have known for a long time; that is, that cultural bombardment is an increasingly effective means of winning friends and influencing people abroad.
For a long time the communists have been anxious to show how the nations of this continent, and particularly their great world rival, the United States, are materialistic and culturally barren, and incapable of producing ideals to which the world can cling in difficult times such as these. The communists have been to the forefront for a long time in this movement toward cultural bombardment. But also a number of European nations, even though they were very hard hit by the last world war, have been doing the same thing, though of necessity on a reduced scale.
Until recently the United States and Canada have been the only two western countries of any size and importance that have not subsidized their arts either at home or abroad. Last autumn, however, the United States congress gave the state department a grant of $2,500,000 to help United States artists and athletes make foreign tours which could not hope to meet expenses by commercial bookings. This program was in addition to the libraries, art exhibits and lecturers sponsored by the United States information agency. All these are providing people on every continent with a different view of the North American way of life, which hitherto has been largely portrayed to them through the medium of the movies, which have often given a wrong viewpoint on our way of life on this continent.
Through its art exhibits, their ballet companies, their concert groups, their musical comedies, drama groups and athletic teams, the United States is endeavouring to show peoples in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America that she has a civilization worthy of admiration, one which can express itself with gaiety, good taste and talent.
Canada is known throughout the world mainly for its material assets. We are known principally for our mineral and agricultural wealth, and most people in other countries of the world do not know very much more

Supply-External Affairs about us. We have here in Canada, and we should realize it, cultural assets which we should be proud to show abroad. Just as an example I would mention that during the past few months the National Ballet Company went to Washington, and the reception it received was extremely enthusiastic.. This, I suggest, was of tremendous advantage to Canada. Our Canadian ambassador sent back very enthusiastic reports as to the reception this company received. It was invited on several occasions to attend the Russian embassy and, from the Canadian point of view, the results were very satisfactory.
We have a heritage in this country, and we should be proud to tell the world about it. It stems from both English and French traditions, and has been enriched during the past 50 years by the cultures of people of many other races who have come to settle in our land. I suggest it is up to Canada-and the United States has given us the example- to play our part in the ideological warfare being waged throughout the world today, by showing that a democracy, as we in Canada understand it, can produce cultural and spiritual as well as material assets. We have in Canada artists and artistic groups in most fields of cultural activity which, if given a chance to show themselves abroad, would bring great prestige to Canada and bring us recognition in another, and hitherto unexplored, field.
Thus far-and I hope this will not continue long-the Prime Minister has seemed reluctant to set up the Canada Council, and through this council bring the pleasures of the arts to a greater number of Canadians at home, as well as make it possible to show our arts and artists to people throughout the world. If the Prime Minister would follow the very excellent lead given by the United States congress last fall and make a worth-while grant to the Department of External Affairs, I know well that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would use such a grant wisely. Not only would he make it possible for Canada to play its full part in the ideological warfare, as Russia and other communist countries as well as the United States and other western European countries are doing, but would make it possible to maintain and heighten the artistic standards of the many cultural groups who are striving so hard to maintain themselves in Canada and who, against difficult financial odds, are waging a very successful fight, and a very commendable one indeed.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few brief comments to make on this first item. I think it must have been noticed by


now that this is one occasion on which there has been almost complete unanimity in the speeches made from both sides of the house. That is perhaps a fortunate thing, as it is always fortunate in a parliament such as ours to have a foreign policy on which we are more or less agreed.
I am particularly happy that on this occasion I have found something in the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as that of the Leader of the Opposition with which I am in hearty agreement. In his address this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition coined a phrase which, if not altogether original, certainly is original in this debate, when he said that freedom is not negotiable. I am in hearty accord with him on that point.
I also agreed with him thoroughly when he raised the question of the self-determination of the nations of the world. There can be no doubt at all that in both the Atlantic charter and the charter of the United Nations the principle of self-determination of nations has stood out as the bright hope for the future of all peoples of the world. We know that the attainment of self-determination and full sovereignty is not something which can be accomplished overnight; and people who are in the position of not having full sovereignty are well aware of that fact. But so long as there is a hope, and so long as people who are oppressed feel that the more important nations in the world-and I count Canada in that group-hold firmly to that principle and are prepared to stand up for it and work for it whenever possible, they will be encouraged and will feel that they have friends among us.
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that there are a number of nations that can be described as satellite states of the Soviet union. It may be said that there are varying degrees in which satellite states may be described. For example there are nations outside the Soviet union but who are so closely related, through military pacts or through straight domination, that they find themselves under the influence of that huge country. Then there are nations which happen to be within the boundaries of the present Soviet union, and which are more directly under its control.
Yet in one respect they are both satellite states. It must always be remembered that not only do we preach and have we preached the self-determination of nations but, as a matter of fact, so has the Soviet union, when it has been found to be a convenient line for them to take. While at times we find that they are apt to deny the freedom of some

of the nations which find themselves within their boundaries in what they describe as a republic state, yet the record shows that whenever it was convenient for them to do so, when they were trying to find allies and friends, particularly in the early part of the revolution when they were not too sure of their own success, the communists themselves were quite glad to promise sovereignty and independence to those nations which now find themselves in a state of bondage within the boundaries of the Soviet union.
For example, on December 17, 1917, Mr. Lenin used the following words in relation to the Ukraine, which today constitutes one of the most important republics within the Soviet union:
We, the soviet of people's commissars, recognize the Ukrainian national republic and its right to separate from Russia or to make an agreement with the Russian republic for federative or other similar mutual relations between them. Everything that touches national rights and the national independence of the Ukrainian people, we, the soviet of people's commissars, accept clearly without limitations and unreservedly.
Nothing could be more categorical than a statement of that kind. It is quite significant to note that it was made on December 17, 1917, at a time when Lenin and his commissars were not too sure as to what would be the final outcome of the revolution. When they felt they needed friends, allies and good neighbours, they at that time offered the hand of friendship and the good neighbour policy to one of the nations beside them. But it is also significant to note, Mr. Chairman, that only eight days later, as a matter of fact on December 25, the same people's commissars issued an ultimatum to the Ukraine in which they practically forced that country to declare itself part of the Soviet union, or else.
Of course we know what happened from there on. The next step was war, and the step after that was the loss of sovereignty by one of the largest nations of Europe. These things have to be remembered and have to be used, because the opportunity does arise from time to time.
We are glad to hear that as a result of the recent talks, meetings and negotiations, perhaps more in the realm of what is unknown than in the realm of what is featured in the headlines, certain things have been accomplished. The general desire for peace in Europe, in the United States, in Great Britain, in Canada, and all over the world is beginning to assert itself. Here I come to the statement with which I so thoroughly agree, made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I did not take down the exact words. I would have liked to use them because I liked the sound of them so well, but I think I can
Supply-External Affairs paraphrase them correctly. He said it is well for us to keep a sense of balance at the present time, to go to neither extreme; not to lose sight of the possibility that we may be moving toward peace, nor to lose sight of the fact that we may not be altogether moving away from the realm of danger.
These are wise words in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. If I may be permitted to say so, without intending any offence whatever to our great neighbour to the south, I would say that in my opinion this sense of balance is more evident in our country than it often is amongst our good friends to the south. I think that is one of the reasons Canada is in such a strategic position to be able to play a very important role in the talks that are taking place from time to time, even though we are not considered one of the big four, or even one of the big five.
The influence we can have on international thinking is altogether out of proportion to our population for several reasons. Perhaps the basic reason is the fact that as a nation we have a clean record of international behaviour of which we can feel proud. We can hold up our heads and say that never has Canada coveted the territory of another country. Never have we tried to dominate any nation of the world. We have always stood for what we thought was right. We are four-square behind freedom, and have done everything possible within our resources to play our part in both the old league of nations and in the United Nations at the present time. Therefore Canada stands in a position where she has no skeletons to hide in the closet; we have no shameful episodes to cover up. We are a nation in the international field which, in my opinion, has an excellent record at the present time.
We can very well make up our minds that there are two rather important principles we must always bear in mind. One of these is that we must take a positive attitude at all times. Whenever we do have the opportunity to play our part in international affairs, by positive action, we must know what we are for as a nation as well as what we are against. It is sometimes easy to be against something. Because of the way newspapers normally play up issues, it is not difficult to know what we are opposing, but it is a little more obscure at times to find out just what we are supporting. What are we for? What are the objectives? Our objective must be freedom, freedom not only for ourselves but freedom for other people of the world.
If we are to influence the thinking of the people behind the iron curtain, and not only behind the iron curtain but in satellite states anywhere in the world, then we must make

Supply-External Affairs it perfectly clear that we stand for the selfdetermination of nations, for freedom of all peoples and for a democratic system of government. Then we must also, in following the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, resist the temptation to buy peace at the expense of the peoples who suffer oppression.
I know it is a difficult subject. It is difficult to find the correct point at which we can say we are striving for peace and we shall make certain concessions through negotiation without sacrificing our principles. These are words that are easy to say but in practice, in diplomatic negotiations, they may not be quite as easy to bring about. It is very important that we do not forget there are millions of people in Europe, and perhaps elsewhere, who are looking to countries such as Canada to see what our attitude should be.
Let us never forget either that we must try for the sympathy and friendship of all these people. It is significant that the countries behind the iron curtain and their friends in Canada are not forgetting this. No doubt hon. members received a pamphlet from an outfit which calls itself the "All-Slav Committee of Canada" which announced a conference to be held in Toronto under the name of "The All-Slav Conference". To many members who may not have taken the trouble to look into the details of it, this might have sounded like a sort of cultural get-together of people of Slavic origin.
It may have looked like a harmless sort of affair, but those of us who follow up these things know it is nothing more than another communist front which is trying to play upon the sympathies of people who have some real thoughts and real problems concerning their own nations. They are bold enough, and perhaps sly enough, to come to our country with their propaganda and try to tell us that they are going to get all these people of Slavic origin together in Toronto, that they are going to issue invitations to foreign countries to have them send delegates, they are going to tell the people of Canada what they should do about their own affairs.
This happens to be a free country, and we are proud of it. We are glad to know that we can tolerate that kind of propaganda in our midst. We can even afford perhaps to ignore it and disregard it, which may be the best way of handling it. But let us not forget that if they did not think there was some value in doing that kind of thing they would not be going to the expense and trouble of organizing it. This indicates to us that they feel it is important to play upon the sympathies of people in Canada in relation to their racial origins and so forth, and therefore we should

be prepared to go beyond our boundaries and take advantage of the natural sympathies and friendships which exist among the oppressed people of Europe and perhaps other places.
These are things we have learned as we went along. I hope what the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have said today will bear fruit, and that when Canada does have an opportunity to play its part, whether it be near the summit or far from the summit, wherever we have influence we will never forget that it is in the interests of this nation to have these millions of allies who are now behind the iron curtain, who in their thinking and in their traditions, who in their culture and their aspirations, are with us in spirit if we will only extend the hand of friendship and show them that we believe firmly in self-determination, freedom and the independence of all nations of the world.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, just before the item carries I think I ought to deal briefly with some of the points that have been raised and some of the questions that were asked during the discussion.
Perhaps I may refer first to the speech of the hon. member for Dauphin. I should like to say how much I agree with what he said and how much I appreciate both the content and spirit of his remarks. How right he was when he said that while we may have to make concessions and compromise in negotiations, we must never sacrifice principles. We will not, I think, in the free democracies accept peace at any price, nor have we any right to ask for peace at no price. The problem is, of course-it is easier stated than solved-what price are we to pay for peace? Another way of putting it is when to stand fast and that of course is the most difficult of all problems in diplomatic negotiations. It is not likely to be any easier in the discussions that are going to take place in the weeks and months ahead.
The hon. member for Broadview made some interesting references to entertainment as a cultural weapon in the propaganda war, or you might wish to put it in a more positive way and refer to it as a cultural link between the nations on either side of the iron curtain as well as between nations who work together politically probably more than they do culturally. I quite agree with the hon. member in his emphasis on the importance of this matter. It is not easy to see where the role of the federal government begins and ends in connection with this subject in a country like Canada, but I do agree with him when he suggests that if the projection of Canada abroad is to be done as impressively

as it should be, an A. Y. Jackson or a ballet dancer or possibly a hockey player can play a part as important as if not a more important part than a visit by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or even possibly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of National
Health and Welfare can do the ballet dance, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs can play hockey.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to see the roles reversed. There is, of course, a part to be performed by the government in this field. Anything that can be done properly by the government to show our friends, and those who are not our friends, that we can excel in fields other than the material should be done, but at the same time we have to be careful not to interfere with the responsibilities and rights of the provinces in educational matters and in fields allied to education. That has presented us with a particular difficulty in this country.
Within that limitation we in the federal government have done something, though probably not nearly as much as the hon. member for Broadview and others think we should have done in this field. But as the hon. member indicated, when the Canada Council is set up it will have a special and important part to play in this field. I think any such international activity would be much better done through an agency of that kind than directly by the government. When the Canada Council is set up the role of the government should be, I think, to give that council the necessary support to accomplish what should properly be accomplished in this field. I have no doubt that will be done when action is taken, as indicated by the Prime Minister, to set up this institution.
The hon. member for Greenwood made one interesting and practical suggestion about the importance of the United Nations and how we could recognize this importance by sending to the United Nations assembly ministers of the crown, or indeed as he suggested by having the Prime Minister attend, whenever opportunity offered. I quite agree that the importance of the assembly is minimized when responsible ministers are not able to be there to take part in the discussions. The habit has grown up in recent years of ministers coming for the opening, staying for a week or two and then returning to their capitals. That is understandable as the sessions have increased in length and as the number of items on the agenda has grown. I wish we could do something about it. It is something in the minds, I think, of all the governments of the United Nations, how to
Supply-External Affairs simplify our procedure and reduce the number of items on the agenda. I think that in itself would be an encouragement to ministers to attend more frequently the meetings of the assembly. I do not think the record of Canada in this regard is bad. We have attempted at all times to have at least one and usually have two members of the government represent us as delegates at the United Nations.
The hon. member for Mackenzie made one or two suggestions with which I should like to deal. He has mentioned these to me privately before, and I appreciate his interest. He does not feel that we are doing enough to publicize the activities of the United Nations and its specialized agencies in Canada, with the result that it is difficult to secure information concerning these activities. There again the resources of the federal government are limited. We have not in the Department of External Affairs, nor do I think we should have, a large sum for information activities. I think we have enough to do some of the major jobs in this field, but we are not tempted by a surplus of financial resources to squander unwisely that which we have.
In the field of United Nations publicity we, of course, publish, as the hon. member knows, "Canada and the United Nations". We have an external affairs monthly bulletin in which appear articles on the United Nations and its technical agencies. Then of course there is the United Nations information section itself, whose primary job and main responsibility is to publicize the United Nations in the various countries. The budget of that section of the United Nations secretariat now runs to $4J million, of which Canada contributes $163,000.
Having said that, however, I agree that we might look into this question in order to see whether we could not do more, and do it more effectively. For that purpose, as the hon. member knows, we have set up an interdepartmental committee which has been meeting recently in order to see how more and better information about United Nations activities can be disseminated throughout the country.
The hon. member also mentioned the desirability of exchanges of visits with countries on either side of what we call the iron curtain, and he made special reference to a visit from Canada to Moscow of parliamentarians, and return visits from Moscow. He made some reference also to an invitation which had been sent to me in San Francisco by Mr. Molotov to go to Moscow. So far as parliamentary visits are concerned, there is no possible objection on the part of the

Supply-External Affairs government to a visit by Canadian parliamentarians to the Soviet union. As hon. members know, an invitation or something which has been considered as an invitation has been received. We do not stand on technicalities in this matter. Although the invitation, as hon. members know, is a little unusual, it has been referred to the Speakers of the two houses and I think is something that now should be left in the hands of the Speakers and probably the whips of the various parties.
If it is desired that a visit of that kind should be arranged, certainly no obstacles would be put in its way by the government. On the other hand, a visit from parliamentarians, if I might call them that-although I think I should put inverted commas around that word-from the Soviet union to Canada would, in my opinion, be a matter for the government because the invitation for such a visit might be expected on the other side of the iron curtain to come from the government. I am not sure that this might not be the most useful and interesting way to begin this exchange, namely to have a select group of the Soviet congress-for the moment I cannot recall the exact name of it -come to Canada as guests not of the Soviet embassy or of any particular organization devoted to Canadian-Soviet friendship but as the guests of the government or the parliament-or both-of Canada, to be given an opportunity to see how democracy works in this country.
Such a visit might have a helpful effect on them and it might have a helpful effect on us. Hon. members know that some Soviet agricultural representatives-I am not exactly certain of their political status; I do not think they are members of the Soviet congress, but they might be-are now in the United States, in the state of Idaho, studying agricultural production. That group is coming to Canada on completion of its visit to the United States.
So far as the invitation to myself is concerned, I have already been in touch with the Soviet government through their ambassador here, and arrangements are now being worked out satisfactorily for a visit in October if present plans can be carried through. There is always the possibility of some emergency which may change the arrangements, but if the present plans are carried through I expect to spend a week in the beginning of October in the Soviet union en route to Singapore, where I shall be representing the government at the ministerial meeting of the Colombo plan. It may be that there will be a meeting of the big four foreign ministers in that


month, or there may be some other development which would interfere with such a visit. I would hope that nothing of the sort will happen, and that I shall be able to carry out my plans and accept the invitation for a week's visit to Moscow and the Soviet union while en route to the meeting of the Colombo plan conference at Singapore.
Reference has been made this afternoon, in two statements, I believe, to the Colombo plan, its importance and the desirability of Canada doing everything we can to support this imaginative and important enterprise. This will be an important meeting at Singapore, because at it consideration will be given to the future of the plan, in the light of the extension of its boundaries. More countries have come into the plan in the last year or two. We shall be looking ahead for the next five years-we are approaching the end of the first five years-in order to see what can and should be done to increase and extend the usefulness of what, I think it is generally agreed, has already proved to be an extremely useful development.
I feel greatly privileged at the opportunity of attending this meeting. It will however make it difficult for me to be at the United Nations assembly at that time, Mr. Chairman, and my friend and colleague who is so experienced and skilful in international matters-United Nations matters in particular-* the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will be carrying on there.
I have just one other reference to make, and that is to the interesting and constructive statement made by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. In referring to the conferences which are ahead of us-and they will be important ones, possibly even decisive ones-with the other side on security questions, he made a remark which has been repeated by other members in the discussion, namely that freedom is not negotiable. We, of course, all agree with him, Mr. Chairman. Slavery, serfdom, the submergence of peoples by conquest and forced absorption-and that has taken place too often in the last 15 or 20 years-is inconsistent with any kind of peace which is more than enforced submission. Security and slavery, as all history shows, are incompatible. We must therefore all agree, I think, with what he has said on that matter.
But of course that does not solve the problem or answer the question which arises, and he did not attempt to answer the question on this occasion. That question is this. What can we do for those people who, by one method or another, have lost their freedom in the last decade or two but who preserve

in their hearts the national traditions, the cultures, the history and the love of freedom which they were once able to express in political form? As I see it, it does not really help those people who are still, I am quite confident, yearning to be free, if we raise unrealistic hopes of intervention at this time. I refer either to military intervention, which of course would be unrealistic and absurd, or diplomatic intervention which, in certain circumstances, would also be quite unrealistic and which might turn out to do more harm than good to those very people themselves.
I think at the present time the best thing we can do to show that we are still very much aware of their problems and of their situation is to continue to do everything we can to bring about a general pacification, a better state of international affairs, from which they ultimately will be able to benefit. Freedom cannot be killed and it flourishes better, even in submerged peoples, in a generally pacific international climate. It has also a better chance, I think, of expressing itself in political form. Therefore at the present time, while never forgetting the position -and while remembering that there is a relationship between their servitude and our security, we would probably not be well advised to take any step which might react against the people we are trying to help by raising false and premature hopes.
The Leader of the Opposition did suggest that this particular matter was something which might be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the subcommittee on disarmament, which it was recommended by the big four this afternoon should meet in August of this year. That subcommittee is a technical subcommittee of a larger United Nations committee which has been considering the technical aspects of disarmament now for many months. While I realize it is very difficult indeed to separate the technical and political aspects of this question, I think we have to be very careful about introducing into this particular agency at this particular time political questions which might make it more difficult to close the gap which still exists between the two sides on the technical aspects of the limitation of armaments.
One of the difficulties we have encountered in recent months while the subcommittee was meeting in London was a tendency on the part of the Soviet union, as expressed in its offer of May 10, to try to link up the two things, the political and the technical aspects of disarmament. While not deprecating in any way the importance of this matter I would, therefore, hesitate to agree that the forthcoming subcommittee meeting in New York on disarmament would be the best place
Supply-External Affairs to thresh out this question. Possibly a meeting of foreign ministers on the political level would be more appropriate for that purpose; but even there, as the Geneva meetings which have just concluded show, it is a subject which has to be handled, as it was handled by President Eisenhower, with care as well as with frankness.
I think I have at least touched on the points that have been raised this afternoon, but before I sit down I should like to express my appreciation, and I am sure it is an appreciation which is shared by all of us, that this discussion has shown, as have other discussions on external affairs, that there is an underlying and encouraging unity in this house on the broad questions of principle in this field.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take more than a few minutes to deal with one aspect of the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not wish to leave any possible impression on the record, and I am not suggesting that there was any thought of doing so except by the reference to the subject, that I was proposing that there should be intervention, either direct or indirect, as a means of solving the extremely important question of the freedom of those nations which have been enslaved since the war. I have made it clear on other occasions that I believe this must be made a part of general discussions, and that there are many occasions when this can be presented to Russia along with the proposals that the Soviets make to Canada and other countries.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, what can we do for those people who have lost their freedom? He went on to say that it does not help to raise false hopes. I agree with that. Nevertheless, subjects have been discussed which appear unlikely to be solved at an early date. Russia, for instance, did not hesitate for a moment to raise certain questions in connection with German unification. Nor, on the other hand, did we hesitate to raise questions about German unification knowing that Russia held different views.
I think there should be a constant reiteration to the Russians of the demand that they remember their obligations. I raised the question at a time when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was not here because he was attending the celebration in San Francisco of the tenth anniversary of the signing of the charter of the United Nations. I dealt then with the points made by Mr. Molotov at San Francisco, when he raised certain questions about the entry of communist China into the United Nations and other subjects that are highly controversial.
6692	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs He did not hesitate to raise these questions there. Surely if Russia can raise the prospect of the entry of communist China into the United Nations we have an equal right, without raising false hopes, to say on similar occasions and at similar meetings that while the Russians are saying to us there are certain things that should be done, we say to them that here is something fundamental to be done.
At San Francisco Mr. Molotov went so far as to say that there should be evidence of deeds and not words. He went so far as to tell the western nations that they should give positive evidence of their desire for peace. I think if Mr. Molotov or any other representative of the Russian government is to make suggestions of that kind at San Francisco or elsewhere, it is appropriate for us to say to them that the very best positive evidence that can be offered of a desire for peace is to comply with their own undertakings at San Francisco on an earlier occasion, when they gave the absolutely unqualified assurance that they would give a free vote to the nations then occupied by their armies. In fact they even went so far as to say how it was to be done. They were going to bring in representatives of the democratic elements in those countries and add them to the provisional governments already set up, so the base could be laid for a free vote under a government of that kind.
I am simply pointing out that the Russians have not hesitated to make suggestions as to things they think should be done. I do not see any reason why we should hesitate-and when I say "we" I mean Canada-because I think as far as the central purpose is concerned there is complete unanimity on the part of all of us. I do not think there is any reason why we should hesitate to say to Russia that here is a very fundamental thing you could do to demonstrate your belief by deeds and not words in the cause of peace.
I think just as long as there are scores of millions of people living in slavery, contrary to the unqualified undertaking of the Russian government, denied the right to have a vote which would offer them the self-determination that was set forth in the beginning of the United Nations charter, we actually are leaving the possibility of explosive forces being created which at any time could cause difficulties for all of us no matter what agreements may be made.
I think recently we have seen evidence even in this house of the value of reiteration, and in the larger field I think that reiteration may finally impress itself. Without any expectation that there may be intervention of any kind, and I wish to make that quite


clear, I would hope that we would reiterate our demand. As the Russians put forward their ideas, we also should put forward our belief that just as certain areas and countries were given a vote after the first world war under the league of nations, a similar vote could be provided under the United Nations by which people would be able to have the right to determine their own form of government, a right assured at San Francisco and at the meetings which preceded the San Francisco conference. I repeat that there is no difference on either side of the house with regard to the central purpose we are all seeking to serve.
We all want to see what can be done to bring about the reality of peace. The remarks I made were directed certainly not to the raising of false hopes but merely to the assurance that could be extended to our friends, who deep in their hearts believe in the same things as we do, that we have not forgotten them and will continue to seek to impress upon the Russian government that it live up to its written obligation given some years ago when the charter of the United Nations was signed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In agreeing with what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, I think I should add that I and the other Canadian delegates at the United Nations and at other places have, both in public and in private, stated and restated to the delegates of communist countries our understanding of the importance of this obstacle to peace and security, the obstacle being the lack of freedom of those countries which were promised freedom years ago.
We shall be glad to do that again as the opportunity offers, and the opportunity is offering itself now in connection with Germany because there is a part of Germany which is not free within our meaning of the word. The western powers have taken their stand very firmly, and they reiterated that stand at Geneva, and we associate ourselves in Canada with it, that there can be no reunification of Germany except on the basis of free elections; there can be no security in Europe until Germany is reunited on that basis.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While I have no intention of bringing up numerous matters, there are two or three I want to mention, and there is one that apparently should come under this item. The details appear at page 173, and it is a vote of $344,000 for telephones, telegrams and other communications. It is about double what it was the year before, and that is what moves me to ask for an explanation of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter came up in the committee, Mr. Chairman, and it was dealt with in some detail at page 643 of the committee report for June 2. I do not want to go into the details, but I would merely say to my hon. friend that the increase is largely due to bringing up to date and modernizing our whole communications and cipher equipment, which is a very expensive business but which has become increasingly necessary as our communications have grown and have become more important in the offices we have all over the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will a good deal be capital and non-recurring?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, a great deal is capital.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This is not really a question, but rather a matter of clarification. I am doing this, I hope, as a favour to the minister. In his reply he made one statement which, unfortunately, could lend itself to a very bad interpretation if it were taken literally. In dealing with these submerged nations he made this statement, as I took it down: "There is a relationship between their servitude and our security." I hope I know what he meant, but certainly it could be interpreted to mean that the latter is only attainable at the expense of the former, and I should like to give him an opportunity to clarify the statement to make sure the meaning is clear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the hon. member, because what I had in mind was exactly the opposite of the interpretation which the hon. member says, and quite rightly, might be given to those remarks. What I had in mind to say was that as long as they are in servitude the rest of the world cannot feel secure.


John Horne Blackmore: I hesitate to bring this
matter up, yet I think we must face it. What caused world war II? What caused the war with Germany? It was the fact that Germany needed markets and she needed raw materials. Let us just face that fact without any nonsensical remarks. Germany urgently needed markets and raw materials. It is not going to be very long before this industrialization now beginning to prevail in Germany will render her need for markets imperative and her need for raw materials equally imperative.
Now, what brought about the war between Japan and this country? It was exactly the same thing. Japan wanted markets and she wanted raw materials. She wanted to exploit China as a source of markets and raw materials.
Supply-External Affairs
What I would like to ask the minister is this. Does anyone at any of these conferences he attends ever give any attention to that kind of thing? I am not particularly concerned about whether or not the minister answers tonight. But for us to go forward as though this problem did not exist is for us to betray our trust. Someone said this afternoon, I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition, that we must give attention to history; we must give attention to what has already occurred.
One of the greatest weaknesses of the whole United Nations set-up, when it was planned at Dumbarton Oaks and established at San Francisco, was that inadequate attention was given to this very important matter of markets for all. The people at those conferences acted as though the problem did not exist.
What I am wondering about is, are we going to be wise enough to make allowance for these needs; because remember if Germany's need for raw materials and markets becomes imperative, all the United Nations on earth will not stop her. The same thing will be true of Japan. And even if we could stop these peoples, we would but force them into economic servitude.
We do not have to go outside this wonderful country of ours, this Canada, to get an illustration. Let us take the situation of the maritimes. What is the difficulty in respect of the maritimes? They cannot develop industry. And why? There is a reason. They cannot have their own markets. And why is that? The main reason is that Ontario and Quebec want to develop the industry. They want to get all the markets.
Now, if you just apply that same situation to the world, you have all the explosiveness necessary to set the world on fire in a war. I hope that some time before long we will begin to talk as though we realized that fundamentally nations fight for markets and for raw materials. Until we organize this world in such a way that we can provide all the people who wish to produce with markets, and all the peoples who wish to produce with a suitable source of raw materials, then it is utterly idle to talk about having a free, peaceful, prosperous or happy world.
If the minister feels like replying now, without having time to prepare, well and good. If he does not, he may just leave this little contribution to be thought about in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
94. Representation abroad-operational-including payment of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff appointed as directed by the governor general in council, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments. $6,700,339.
Mr. Lusby:: There is a question I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs and perhaps it would properly come under this item. In common I suppose with all hon. members, for the last several months I have been receiving a publication which I think emanates from the Soviet embassy here, a news bulletin I think they call it, which comes out frequently. Does the minister's department issue or circulate anything which might be called a Canadian counterpart of this publication, and if so is it circulated in Moscow or anywhere else in the Soviet union?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not, and for two reasons. We have not the financial resources and, if we had, I doubt if our booklet would get very wide circulation in the Soviet union.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
109.	Colombo plan, $26,400,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister comment on the policy being carried out, whether it is being used as a welfare fund or as a means of, so to speak, priming the pump, by increasing technical skills abroad?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Payments under the Colombo plan cover both capital assistance and technical assistance. The capital assistance is a welfare fund in the sense-and only in the sense-that it is designed to help the people of those countries to help themselves. It is not a welfare fund in any other sense, and the countries concerned do not like to get their assistance in the form of consumer goods or help of that kind. But the technical assistance works both ways. This fund enables us to send technicians to those countries to help them in organizing their technical services, and it also provides for receiving in this country students in our technical and engineering institutions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
110.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in the intergovernmental committee for European migration in an amount of $172,408 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1955, which is, $166,482.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here also I would ask the minister for a word of explanation indicating the course of the migration and of the work of the international committee, and where it stands today.
[Mr. Blackmore.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: This committee has done useful work in recent years in assisting the movement of migrants from Europe. The present scope and duration of the committee is on an annual basis, and we have made this contribution to its work on condition that its operations will be reviewed at the end of this year. It may be possible to wind up its special work at the end of the year and have it taken over by a more permanent organization in the United Nations or elsewhere. Meantime it has done useful work, and we think it would be helpful to encourage this work for another 12 months. It is participated in by a number of governments. Its budget is made up of three parts: contributed funds, financed by the assessment of member states; a voluntary fund financed by negotiation, and reimbursements from governments for services rendered to them by the organization.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How is the governing body set up? Is it representative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Each contributing member- and I cannot recall how many there are-is a member of the governing body.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
111.	To provide for the cost of Canada's participation as a member of the international commission for supervision and control in Indo-China, $705,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister say anything as to the likely duration of our participation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can say that it is a matter which has been giving us a great deal of thought and some worry in the department, because at the present time there are about 170 Canadians serving on the international commissions in the three Indo-Chinese states. We think it will go on for another year. We had rather hoped, when the commissions were formed, that they would be able to accomplish their purposes in two years. The first stage of the work has been pretty successfully accomplished in regrouping the forces behind the 17th parallel in Viet Nam, and the restoration of order and some form of security in the other states. I cannot predict with certainty, but we hope that within another year at the most our obligations in regard to these commissions will be discharged.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are recent disorders a serious threat to the accomplishment of the commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, the recent riots at Saigon have been a deplorable development; and the commission, which has just moved from Hanoi, where it was in northern Viet

Nam, to Saigon-or is about to move to Saigon-has naturally viewed with some anxiety the prospect of carrying on its activities in Saigon in view of these riots. However, it is to be hoped that sufficient security precautions will be taken by the authorities in question to prevent a recurrence of this sort of thing in the future.
The commissions are in touch with the governments concerned, the government of Viet Nam and the government of France, which has a residual responsibility for security there, and as a result of these contacts in the last day or two we hope the commission will be able to carry on its work satisfactorily in Viet Nam.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister gives the figure of the number of Canadians involved it makes me realize that I have had a wrong idea of the nature of the work of the commission. I had thought of it as something in the nature of a judicial or reviewing body. But when the minister refers to 170 persons, I realize it must be doing much more than that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The 170 persons consist largely of officers of the Canadian armed services, or mobile and stationary inspection teams, to see that the military clauses of the armistice are carried out. Of that 170 there are only about 35 civilians from the Department of External Affairs in the three Indo-Chinese countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Civil defence-
283. To provide for the civil defence program, $7,001,034.
Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, by a very strange coincidence it was 9.35 p.m. last Saturday night we entered upon the discussion of this item, and I notice that tonight, a week later, it is 9.31 p.m. So may I point out that once again we are in the very awkward position, toward the end of a long session, of being compelled to discuss civil defence in just a few minutes. I think it reflects a very bad arrangement of the business of the house when civil defence is relegated to such an inferior position in relation to other matters coming before us.
May I point out that this is nothing new. I looked back to see what had happened in 1952. On the subject of civil defence we spent one hour and 20 minutes. I estimate the time by allowing seven minutes per page of Hansard. In 1953 we spent 50 minutes on the subject of civil defence. In 1954 a little more attention was paid to it, two
Supply-Health and Welfare hours and a half. This year, 1955, so far we have had 25 minutes on this subject.
A week ago I was prepared for two things. Had the minister risen in his place and made a statement on civil defence I would have been prepared to continue past the hour of ten o'clock, but he was asked to make a statement and failed to do so. That has been his practice for the past four years. I think it is wrong. I think the minister should lead off, summarize the work and give us an indication of what is going on rather than sit it out, as he did last year, have half a dozen people speak and then rise and comment on each suggestion that was made.
We are not in a position, really, to make suggestions unless we know the picture of civil defence. I purposely restrict my remarks this evening in order to give the minister a chance to tell us just what is going on in civil defence. I could easily consume the allotted time on the subject, since I have been looking into it, but I am not going to do so, in the hope that the minister will tell us just what is happening in his department. He must give us some assistance, because we are not in a very happy position on civil defence. In my opinion there is too much misunderstanding. The minister is coming in for a great deal of criticism with regard to lack of plans, and so on.
I hold in my hand four articles from the Winnipeg Free Press of March of this year, which talk about plans which do not exist. I am not going to quote from them. I have articles from the Winnipeg Tribune, dated March 1, reporting a speech made by the chief instructor of Canada's civil defence college. The speech was made at Arnprior. The heading says "Grim Forecast for Montreal and Toronto. A Million Dead without Warning." Then I have other information concerning the results of the recent tests at Nevada which have a bearing on civil defence.
My hope was that the minister would have brought us up to date on this matter. I am not going to suggest that things are not going well in civil defence. I am not going to enter into that discussion or make a detailed analysis of what is going on. Take it for granted that co-operation is essential between the provinces and the federal government and between the municipalities and the provincial governments, and so on. I take all that for granted. What we need to know now is the actual situation, because the general impression appears to be that in the event of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb, everybody is going to be destroyed. We have read quite a bit in the newspapers about the danger of fall-out, yet at the same time we find that
6696	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare in the Nevada tests people in trenches quite close to that particular explosion survived. Several lessons were learned from that test. We had Canadian observers there.
The minister should select the House of Commons as the place to make statements concerning these things. I do not like to be dependent upon newspaper accounts, because everybody knows that if we suggest to the minister that he was reported as having made a speech in such and such a place regarding civil defence he might, quite properly and rightly, say that was not the full account of what he said. Perhaps this speech at Arnprior was not correctly reported. It is only in a statement made here in the house, recorded in Hansard, that we can have accurate information with regard to this subject.
I hope the minister will be able to tell us that there is a chance for survival without complete evacuation of cities; or if we are dependent on evacuating cities then how are the plans going with regard to that? I find it rather confusing, yet how important the whole problem is.
We are building very expensive radar warning lines in the north in order to give us warning of impending attack. We are counting on interceptor planes to prevent bombers reaching us. We are living in some trepidation of the development of intercontinental rockets which might strike without warning. So I should say, despite the talks that are now going on at Geneva, we cannot immediately forget all our defensive plans, and part of those is civil defence.
A year ago the minister said-and I again appreciate what he said-we do not need to build the thing up, get excited about it and go in for quite a bit of ballyhoo. I quite agree. Civil defence should be considered very coldly and dispassionately, and not made a matter of tremendous excitement. The Canadian people are sensible enough to deal with these matters provided that they know what to do.
Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I could go on at very considerable length. I would have liked to do so, to have analysed some of the forecasts and given some regard to suggestions that were made last year, to have commented upon the minister's statement of last year, but I am going to conclude in just one minute and give others a chance to participate.
Specifically I would ask the minister to tell us now of the danger from the hydrogen bomb from the standpoint of the experts who have studied these matters. Let him also tell us whether or not our sole means of safety is in the evacuation of cities, or whether at the same time bomb-proof shelters might be desirable. In that connection, I am sure he


has seen the experiment being undertaken by the Toronto Telegram in erecting a bombproof shelter which they say was inspired by the minister and has been approved by General Worthington.
These are the things that confuse the public. Is everybody to rush out of the cities after warning, or are they to provide protection for themselves, or is there to be public protection? What is the plan at the present time? Let us not just throw up our hands in horror and say nothing can be done. I feel sure a great many things can be done in this struggle for survival, and we should not simply be discouraged because of the scare headlines that we have read. Therefore it is a matter of responsibility for the minister to relieve the minds of Canadian people and point us in the right direction.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Chairman, I must say I, and I am sure the house generally, sympathize with what the hon. gentleman said at the outset. Hon. members will recall that last week, after the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace spoke, I offered-it is true it was after ten o'clock-to intervene. The reason I did so was that I thought that was the most orderly way of proceeding at that time.
I fully agree with the hon. member that this subject, like so many other subjects we have to discuss at this time, justifies full consideration. I am sure he will appreciate, just as other hon. members will appreciate, that none of us individually is the author of this particular situation. I thank my hon. friend for what I thought were fair remarks on his part. As the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged in this house, this is perhaps the most difficult matter facing modern governments at this time. Certainly I would not for one moment suggest that in this country or in any other country of the free world we have reached anything like the stage where we can speak of this matter with satisfaction in so far as our actual preparations are concerned.
As the former prime minister of Great Britain, Sir Winston Churchill, said three months ago, that is the situation. It is true, as the President of the United States said a short time ago. It is true, as I have said repeatedly. My hon. friend has said that he is not now speaking of the conventional side of civil defence, that he appreciates there is a great measure of co-operation in this matter, much greater now than there was in an earlier period. We can confirm that. For instance, we now have an agreement with the senior province, that is the largest province, as to the sharing of costs and as to the division of responsibility. I cannot speak

too highly of the co-operation we are receiving at this time from the province of Ontario, as we are receiving co-operation from practically all the other provinces.
That co-operation is necessary because, as I have stated repeatedly, civil defence depends in the final analysis upon the action of the individual citizen. If Coventry does not want to be defended, no government in the United Kingdom can defend the people of Coventry. Those were the words of Mr. Churchill, and one could paraphrase those words and apply them to Canada. I think we can say that on the conventional side of civil defence we are as advanced as, in some particulars even more advanced than, other countries.
We have now registered 189,000 civil defence workers as compared with 300,000 civil defence workers registered in the United Kingdom. On a per capita basis we have more civil defence workers than they have in the country to the south. On a per capita basis our grants to the municipalities are greater than those in the United States. In both the United Kingdom and Canada the central government does not bear the full cost. In our case we bear roughly 90 per cent of the cost. In the United Kingdom the grants to the municipalities are slightly greater than are our grants to the provinces, and our grants to the provinces and to the municipalities are larger than those in the United States.
My hon. friend says he assumes that the things we have been saying about the conventional side of civil defence should be accepted. He has touched upon the most difficult problem we have to face, that is the implications of	the thermonuclear
weapon. We have to realize and we do realize that the primary information comes to us from the United States. That is the only country on our side which has the necessary bombs, and it is the only country which has carried on tests in connection with them. We have had the opportunity of having our officials witness these tests, both on the military and civil defence sides. We are collaborating continually with the United Kingdom and United States civil defence officials, and the plans and operations we have under way likewise parallel the plans and operations in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Last week we had a conference here on civil defence at which Governor Val Peterson, director of civil defence in the United States, and his associates were present. We exchanged views, as did General Worthington at the meeting of NATO civil defence units in Paris where he had the opportunity 50433-423
Supply-Health and Welfare of conferring with his opposite numbers in the United Kingdom, the Scandinavian countries and the United States.
My hon. friend touched on a difficult problem when he said the Canadian people do not want to be panicked, they do not want to be frightened. We are criticized at one point because we do not say enough; we are criticized on the other hand because on occasion we do frighten our people. My hon. friend was probably referring to a speech I made a short time ago at the civil defence college. What I said then was true. I quite realize that in saying that if a thermonuclear bomb were dropped on the city of Toronto at a certain level with certain winds prevailing west to east it would cause the death of a million people. That is a frightening statement, but that was not the first time that statement had been made. I have been criticized for not making enough statements of that kind. My hon. friend will appreciate the difficulty of knowing precisely where to draw the line.
The best knowledge available-I do not speak only of Canada but of other countries as well-is that assuming the worst, assuming the dropping of a thermonuclear bomb on a community, the people within a certain radius of that direct primary target area would be completely annihilated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Whether above or below ground?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. My hon. friend has had a chance of verifying the observations made recently by British scientists who made representations particularly to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. What they said was true. I am not saying that this will eventuate, because it may be that the Prime Minister of Britain was right when he said that the very cataclysmic potential of the bomb would be such as to make it in terms of desirable human conduct impossible to happen, but we cannot make that assumption. The fact is that the best knowledge available now suggests-there are implications in this for the military that we have to bear in mind, and I am sure my hon. friend will understand-that the best defence against that kind of attack is evacuation.
The evacuation of Canadian communities has been studied and acted upon. This is the only known defence against that particular weapon. With that in view, and impossible as the task may seem, we in civil defence in this country and elsewhere have evolved plans for evacuation. I do not say that at this moment we could evacuate all the communities of Canada, because we could not and
6698	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare neither could the United States, the United Kingdom or other countries. But it does not help us to have some people say that evacuation is an impossibility. It may be impossible in certain areas-I will not say what areas- but surely it is not impossible in a country like Canada, with our open spaces and our relatively small number of large communities. In certain sections of the United States the problem becomes one of the greatest magnitude.
We have carried on evacuations in this country. We had an evacuation last fall in Brockville. We had an evacuation in May in St. John's, Newfoundland. We had a successful evacuation about six weeks ago in Brandon, Manitoba. In the month of September we are going to have the largest and the most complete form of evacuation ever attempted on the continent with the exception of that carried out in one United States city.
When we talk about this problem it is not merely a question of moving people out of a building or moving people out of a city. The question involves many auxiliary services such as hospitalization, welfare, billeting and so on. Admittedly it becomes one of the most difficult tasks that has ever been attempted, but one is driven to do something about this matter because there is no other defence known to us at this time. I merely mention these details to indicate to the hon. gentleman that this matter is very much in our minds, as it is in the minds of those in other countries similarly engaged.
With regard to the fall-out, may I say that is one of the further implications of this problem. A bomb falling on the particular city mentioned, with the wind prevailing west to east, would cause havoc as far away as the city of Sherbrooke in the province of Quebec through the dangers of the fall-out. The known ways of dealing with the fall-out have been tested in the Nevada desert, and we are taking advantage of that experience. It is not our own experience. It is the experience of those who have the bomb and who have tried it out. On the basis of what they have tested I have made, in general terms, these observations. We do know that there are certain forms of shelter against the fall-out. There is the ordinary basement, the shelter underground with three feet of earth on top and so on. These have all been tested. They are being tested in Canada as they have been tested in Nevada.
As to the particular story that appeared in the Toronto Telegram, I can only say that I have not seen that shelter. However, I did say that this kind of interest was to be


commended and that we were looking at the particular shelter in order to see whether or not it conforms to what, in the light of the Nevada experience, seems to be an effective kind of shelter. I have not yet had a report on the matter.
I hope I have given my hon. friend an indication that we appreciate the problem we face. I have given him a general outline of the kind of work we are seeking to do. I would invite him and other hon. members, at their leisure, to go to the civil defence college at Arnprior. We have now trained there, completely at federal expense, almost 7,000 individuals, who in turn have trained 83,000 individuals who are engaged in various activities throughout the country.
I do not want to detain the house needlessly at this time. I am answering directly the observations made by my hon. friend. I have made these observations to show him our interest in the matter. I am prepared to answer any other questions. I want the house to know that with all the power and energy we possess-in collaboration with the other countries, with the provinces and with 800 different communities in Canada-we are seeking to focus our attention at our organization levels on what I am sure all hon. members will recognize as the most difficult task one could possibly assume.
It is sometimes suggested that this is a problem for the Department of National Defence. At one time this matter was under that department. I remember the observations made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South last year and also by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, who agreed that this was essentially a civil responsibility. That is the experience in the United Kingdom, and it is the experience in the United States.
There is a role for the armed forces to play. My colleague the Minister of National Defence and I have had consultations with one another about further studies to be made on the part to be played by the military in this country. There is a role, I would hope, for the reserve to play in certain phases of civil defence. But we must not forget that civil defence is essentially the welfare services, the police services, the fire services, the medical services and the health services of the community. There is a role for others to play in this activity, which at this time is essentially a civilian activity.
My hon. friend may be sure that I greatly appreciate the remarks he made and the tenor of his approach.


Mr. Michener:: There is one aspect of civil defence which I have not heard mentioned,

though I assume that it must have had consideration. I should just like to ask a question if I can do so within the time that is left. Let us assume that there has been a destructive thermonuclear battle which has -as well it might-destroyed the capital of Canada and the provincial capitals, and you have all the problems the minister has been discussing with regard to saving people. What I am concerned about is the survival of the national entity, particularly the federal civil administrative authority. If the minister could, in a few words, say whether that matter has received any thought, I should be glad if he would do so.
I should like him to tell us how the powers which are exercised by this house and our government devolve if the country has been broken up into pockets of resistance. There must be in existence some plan by which those in a local community can recognize who represents the civil authority in that area, assuming that the centres have been destroyed. Perhaps I have not expressed my thought fully but I do not want to take the necessary time to do so. That is, however, the sort of problem I have in mind, namely the devolution of civil authority throughout the country. People should know where to look if that incredible situation should develop; and that is the problem I have in mind.


Murdo William Martin: That problem is very much to the fore. It is a matter that was discussed at the last NATO meeting about three weeks ago. NATO has made certain recommendations to the member states of the North Atlantic community. We are now giving consideration to them. It is also one of the matters that we discussed with the United States a few days ago.


Daniel Roland Michener: I think the minister has not quite followed me, or I have not fully expressed my thought. I am looking toward the continuing civil authority, not the military authority.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, I know. The NATO meeting I referred to is the civil defence meeting under NATO auspices. Under NATO the civil defence forces of the NATO countries meet. They are not the military; they are the civil defence authorities. General Worthington represented us at the last one, with General Sir Sidney Kirkman of the United Kingdom and Governor Peterson of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, if we leave this matter where it stands now I think it is not fair to this committee or to the minister. I am going to read one sentence from a speech 50433-423J
Supply-Health and Welfare I myself made a year ago. It is just one sentence and not a very long one. As reported at page 6498 of Hansard of June 22, 1954, it is as follows:
If we had a bombing attack tomorrow the minister would be grievously and very unfairly blamed for what would be the fault of us all, and I suggest therefore that we be given a very realistic appreciation of this situation as it is and not as we would like it to be.
I feel that what the minister has done tonight has been to give us some illustrations of what is going on. He has mentioned evacuations from small places where the problem is a tiny one compared with what it would be with respect to Montreal or Toronto. I like to think I am speaking in the minister's interest as well as in the interest of this house.
I suggest that we have not the information which this house should have. The task which he has is unbelievably difficult, because it is almost beyond human capacity to stir people up to do what they should do themselves. I am not going to make a speech tonight, but I suggest again that at the present moment, in spite of what the minister says about the people they have trained and in spite of the other things he has mentioned, as a matter of fact he has not made an impact on the people of Canada to this moment. It is his job to do so, however hard-and perhaps unfairly hard-it is. Therefore I hope that the minister will make a full statement. If he wants to know what I mean by a full statement, I suggest that he look at the speech made a year ago by the hon. member for Calgary North. It was set out there in considerable detail. I submit again, Mr. Chairman, that we are not doing our duty if we pass this item at this moment.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was wondering if the
minister would clear up one thing. The point that was disturbing me was the results of the Nevada test, as reported in the newspapers. I do not know how accurate these reports are. I have no information as to the size of the bomb that was exploded in that test. The minister may be talking about something a great deal larger. However, in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette of the 7th of May there is the following:
Survival is possible within a fairly close range of an atomic blast, if suitable shelter is available . . . The lesson is that survival Is possible for many of the people in a target area. . . . First, there must be adequate shelter, public or private. This could be anything from a masonry office building to a good cellar, or a trench in a back yard. Second, there must be trained teams of

Supply-Health and Welfare
radiation experts in the area to assess damage, discover and patrol danger areas and supply first aid and reorganization.
Do the plans of the minister cover both aspects, that is protection of that nature within the target area plus plans for evacuation? That is the point that I think is not quite clear.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, they do. The bomb in the Nevada test to which my hon. friend has referred was one equivalent to 36,000 tons of TNT. That is about twice the size of the bomb dropped at Nagasaki. The bomb dropped at the Eniwetok atoll in November, 1953, was of course a thermonuclear bomb, and the United States government has not decided to drop a bomb of that dimension on the mainland. We rely for our estimate of the danger of the thermonuclear bomb, the kind dropped on the Eniwetok atoll, on the experience that was obtained from that particular detonation. But we are able to make certain conclusions by comparing the damage caused by the 36 kiloton bomb dropped at Nevada with the damage caused on the islands in the Eniwetok atoll. Our conclusions are also based on other considerations, but I am sure my hon. friend will understand that I cannot give them in public.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would it not be better to attempt to get the idea across that survival is possible even in the case of a hydrogen or atomic bomb attack? What I fear is that the present apathy is due to the fact many people think nothing can be done, and I suggest that the emphasis should be placed on the fact that it is possible to survive if precautions are taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps my hon. friend has seen the material that has been issued recently and the notes on other material that are coming out along that very line, pointing out what can be done. We are now sending out specifications as to the kind of shelters which could be used under certain circumstances. My hon. friend made what I thought was a very helpful observation tonight. I am not comparing it with what the hon. member for Greenwood had to say, but the hon. member for Greenwood did take another position which reflects the situation in which we find ourselves. We could go all out and do what they are doing in another country. I have been in hotels in another country and I have seen signs and all that sort of thing.
I have talked to the civil defence directors in 36 United States cities, and I am satisfied that in what we are doing here we are building on as solid lines as we possibly can, and


we are doing it in what I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to as the Canadian manner. It may not satisfy everyone.
On this very point I recently met a group of individuals representing various organizations who have special experience in the dissemination of information. One representative was the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace representing the Canadian federation of advertising and sales clubs. We had a conference with this group, and we are now taking into consideration some of their recommendations. Some of them are pretty much along the lines of those we have been following.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Last year when some of us visited the civil defence college at Arnprior we were shown a little gadget which looked something like a pencil flashlight. As I recall, its purpose was to enable an individual to determine whether or not he was radioactive, and it was suggested then that there was going to be a program of distribution. Can the minister tell us what has been done in that connection?


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member is referring to the dosimeters shown to the people who visited the civil defence college. We had hoped that in February we would be able to approve for general distribution that particular model. However, in the light of the experience with regard to that dosimeter at Nevada we have decided to withhold approval for the time being. A new one is now under consideration. I hope we will be able to make some assessment as to its use by September, and if it meets our requirements I hope we can recommend it for the kind of distribution we had intended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Walter Edward Harris: I presume the committee will pass all the remaining items on Monday, but just by way of guidance as to priority we shall take first the labour items, then mines and technical surveys, secretary of state and finance.


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

Supply
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
29.	Marketing service administration, $354,217.
30.	Agricultural economics, $656,860.
31.	Dairy products, $802,513.
32.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $529,235.
33.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian horticultural council, $1,399,988.
34.	Live stock products, stockyard supervision and furs, $763,583.
35.	Poultry products, $751,402.
36.	Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed $6,000, $100,000.
Terminable services-
37.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $15,500,000.
38.	Agricultural lime assistance, $500,000.
39.	To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $5,700,000.
Special-
40.	Agricultural products board administration,
[Stage Direction]
41.	To provide for grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, $1,100,000.
42.	For assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions to be approved by the governor in council, $10,000.
43.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,924,253.
44.	Major irrigation and reclamation projects in the prairie provinces, $7,048,340.
45.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $500,058.
46.	Land protection, reclamation and development in British Columbia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $90,281.
47.	Land protection and reclamation; clearing and settlement of new lands under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $924,000.
48.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, $2,216,017.
49.	Assiniboine river-dyking and cut-off, $100,000.
50.	To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, $89,700.
Marketing service-
637.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $1,490,539.
638.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey-further amount required, $38,000.
Special-
639. Assiniboine	river-dyking	and	cut-offfurther amount required, $100,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
783. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with the provisions of section
58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purposes of financing the production of new and improved varieties of seeds, the acquisition, maintenance and development for experimental purposes of livestock, poultry and eggs, including administrative expenses of all authorized projects; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any one time not to exceed $620,000, of which $250,000 has already been provided under vote 556, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1952 and $370,000 under vote 762, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, $1.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
92.	Departmental administration, $3,731,631.
93.	Passport office administration, $253,779.
94.	Representation abroad-operational-including payment of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff appointed as directed by the governor general in council, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $6,700,339.
95.	Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, new equipment and furnishings, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $2,022,190.
96.	To provide for official hospitality, $30,000.
97.	To provide for relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and for the reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable), $15,000.
98.	Canadian representation at international conferences, $200,000.
99.	Grant to the United Nations association in Canada, $11,000.
100.	Grant to the international committee of the Red Cross, $15,000.
101.	To authorize and provide for the payment from foreign currencies owned by Canada and available only for governmental or other limited purposes, in France, The Netherlands and Italy, of fellowships and scholarships and travelling expenses to enable Canadians to study in those countries, and for payment to the Royal Society of Canada of amounts not to exceed $10,000 in all to meet travelling and other administrative costs incurred by the society for those it may designate to act on its behalf in selecting persons to receive fellowships and scholarships, $125,000.
B-General-
102.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in international and commonwealth organizations, as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1955, which is, $2,917,975.
103.	To provide for the Canadian government's contribution to the United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to under-developed countries in an amount of $1,500,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1955, which is, $1,448,438.
104.	Contribution to the United Nations children's fund. $500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
105.	To provide, subject to the approval of the governor general in council and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, for special administrative expenses, including payment of remuneration, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the international staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (part recoverable from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), $34,383.
International civil aviation organization-
106.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $201,872.
International joint commission-
107.	Salaries and expenses of the commission including, subject to the approval of the governor general in council and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as amended, payment of salary of the chairman of $17,000 per annum, $103,114.
108.	To provide for Canada's share in the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the international joint commission, $111,550.
Terminable services-
109.	Colombo plan, $26,400,000.
110.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in the intergovernmental committee for European migration in an amount of $172,408 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1955, which is, $166,482.
111.	To provide for the cost of Canada's participation as a member of the international commission for supervision and control in Indo-China, $705,000. A-Department and missions abroad-
646.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $96,138.
647.	Representations abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, new equipment and furnishings, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes-further amount required, $340,000.
B-General-
648.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in international and commonwealth organizations, as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1955-further amount required, $235.
649.	To provide for a further contribution by the Canadian government towards the cost of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization permanent headquarters in an amount of 30,000,000 French francs, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1955, which is, $84,660.
International joint commission-
650.	Salaries and expenses of the commission- further amount required including, subject to the approval of the governor general in council and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as amended, payment of salary of the chairman at the rate of $17,000 per annum for the period July 1, 1954, to March 31, 1955, $1,500.
Terminable services-
651. To provide for a grant by the Canadian government to the intergovernmental committee for European migration for the resettlement of refugees of European origin now in China, $50,000.
652. To provide for a grant by the Canadian government to the United Nations refugee fund, $125,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
788. To provide for an additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations Organization in an amount of $66,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1955, which is $65,175.
[Stage Direction]
B-Civil defence-
283. To provide for the civil defence program, $7,001,034.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 25, 1955