1956-02-27

Mr. Speaker:: Sad news has come this afternoon from India that the hon. the Speaker of the House of the People in India has died. Many hon. members will recall Mr. Speaker Mavalankar when he was here in Canada as a visiting member on the occasion of the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As hon. members know, he was also the president of the general council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. His death is a loss indeed to India and also to the commonwealth as a whole because he had a great knowledge of constitutional law and parliamentary procedure and had made a great contribution to the affairs of all commonwealth parliaments.
In your name I sent a telegram to the secretary general of the India parliament which reads as follows:
Please convey to Mrs. Mavalankar and members of your parliament condolence of members of Canadian House of Commons and myself in sad loss of Speaker Mavalankar.
Louis Rene Beaudoin,
Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 150, to amend the National Parks Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Mr. Blackmore:: Explain.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make a change in subsections 1 and 2 of section 8 of the National Parks Act so that the rights of citizens may be better protected and also that the penalties and procedure may be brought more into line with present-day practice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES POWER COMMISSION ACT


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act to change the name of the commission to "Northern Canada Power Commission"; to authorize the commission to supply public utilities other than electrical power and to operate outside the territories; also to provide a fund to enable the commission to carry on investigations; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to empower the St. Lawrence seaway authority to construct, maintain and operate international bridges as specifically authorized by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, and to construct, maintain and operate incidental works; to provide the specific authority for the construction of an international bridge; to enable the authority to establish tariffs of tolls with respect to pedestrians or vehicles using highways or bridges under its authority; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. White (Middlesex East):
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the chief purchasing officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Daly building, Ottawa and dairy firms and all other interested parties, having to do with tenders for milk to be delivered to the Department of Veterans Affairs, London, Ontario, since August 1, 1955 to date, and also a copy of all tenders submitted on forms 2 R-LO-64, since August 1. 1955 to date.	.
Motion agreed to.
1564	HOUSE OF
Conservation


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation, with the view to the establishment of a nationwide policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth occasion on which I have moved a similar motion in this house. I take advantage of the opportunity provided by the rules of this house to bring this important question to the attention of the chamber. I do so with undiminished zeal and in the hope that the minister will finally be convinced of the soundness of our arguments, of our pleas and of the urgent need for our proposal and the public support behind it throughout the country. I trust that this afternoon the atmosphere of the house will be such that we will be able to imagine falling water, the sough of wind in the firs, and the smell of the good earth.
I never rise to speak on a resolution such as this without remembering the many occasions upon which the former member for Davenport, the late Mr. MacNicol, spoke on similar questions. I remember his interest in this matter and the travelling he did throughout this country to promote public interest in the principles of conservation.
I rise also because the policies of this group are based fundamentally upon reverence for life and reverence for creation, and in that spirit we in this group are constantly advancing suggestions for the conservation of human and natural resources.
I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the problem. The solving of the conservation problem alone is not going to save this country or save the world. Political, social, educational and other measures are indispensable, but unless the conservation of natural resources is practised generally throughout this country in the near future our efforts in other directions will fail. In my opinion a government concerned with economic and political problems cannot ignore the necessity for the conservation of natural resources. If it does it is attempting to erect a national structure without sound foundation and it will simply not stand the test of time. In my opinion the most imminent danger is that we shall not realize how very short we are of that one unrenewable natural resource, time. If we delay until the next year or the next decade or the years to come, we shall be wasting just so much valuable time. 

Other peoples and other civilizations suffered the consequences of ignorance, ineptitude, inaction and delay, and there is no reason why that experience cannot be repeated in Canada if we continue to procrastinate.
Our national health requires first of all that our renewable natural resources-those are the resources with which we are dealing this afternoon-be used to produce as much wealth as possible on a sustained yield basis throughout the years. We dare not exhaust those national resources to a dangerous point, because there are no substitutes.
As I said previously, this is not a partisan question. There is support in all political parties for the principles of conservation, and there is an opportunity in practising the principles of conservation for public ownership, for co-operative ownership and for private initiative. In my opinion, we shall require all three working together if we are going to solve this question satisfactorily.
There is an increasing recognition of the importance of conservation of our resources. More and more people are expressing their concern and their support for those principles. I wish to deal momentarily with just a few. I read recently that Lord Alexander of Tunis in a speech said this:
The forests of Canada are one of our greatest national assets and their conservation and use for the benefit of Canadians, present and future, is of great importance to all citizens everywhere.
On May 4, 1953, as reported on page 4764 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had this to say in speaking in a similar debate:
We recognize, as do all other hon. members, that the natural resources of Canada are a heritage' to be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians.
On February 16, 1955, as recorded on page 1205 of Hansard, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), speaking on a similar resolution, said this:
I agree with him, however, that conservation of our natural resources is undoubtedly one of the most important subjects that can be discussed in this house.
Then we have in the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham), a min-nister who I know is interested in conservation of natural resources and who practises what he preaches. I was told recently that last summer when he was on his summer vacation he was out fishing with a party that caught a considerable quantity of fish. After using all they could in the camp that evening, they had a number left over, and then the instinct of the minister in support of the principles of conservation began to work. Do you know what the minister did?

He had heard many times about artificial respiration of human beings and the minister said: "Why not practise it on fish?" The minister practised artificial respiration on a number of fish, brought them back to life, put them in the water, and they went away to be caught another day. That is a true story.


An hon. Member:: That is a fish story.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Ask anyone to check on that. Then the agricultural institute of Canada-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was probably caught by another minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -has for a long time urged a national policy of conservation of soil, water and other natural resources in Canada. They have had a very good committee working on this question throughout the year. The Canadian forestry association has urged the government to give increased attention to the question of the conservation of forests. During last year they were the sponsors of a dominion-wide conference on renewable natural resources. The recent convention of the Canadian lumbermen's association is another indication of the interest of the lumber industry in increased federal expenditures for the protection of our forests and national leadership in the question of a nation-wide conservation policy.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has taken an active part in studying this whole question, particularly the question of river bank erosion in British Columbia in recent years. The trades union congresses have indicated their interest in the matter. So have county and municipal organizations, particularly in the province of Ontario, as well as universities, the press, many periodicals and increasingly wide sectors of private industry in Canada, particularly the pulp and paper industry. There is also a very rapidly growing number of private Canadian citizens who are becoming interested in the subject because of the activities of these other groups.
I recognize the good work done by the federal government in certain directions, under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the water resources act and the good work under the Rocky mountains conservation board act. In that connection I must pay tribute to Major General Kennedy. There is a man who is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of conservation as applied to forest resources. There is a man with a technical understanding of the problem, with the earthy approach that is required to get the
Conservation
co-operation of his officials and the people directly concerned. I think his work has proven very successful.
As I said before, various other bodies and organizations, particularly the pulp and paper industry, have carried on somewhat extensive research in recent years which has been of great value to all those interested in the problem. However, in my opinion there is a necessity for federal government leadership and financial assistance at this time to assure the satisfactory conservation of these resources on a nation-wide basis. I repeat that while there is a great deal being done in various directions we have, not only in my opinion but in the opinion of most responsible and informed people throughout the country, reached a point where there is an increased and urgent need for federal government leadership on these, most important questions.
When speaking on my resolution last year the minister gave three reasons for not agreeing to accept it. While he supported the principles of conservation in general, he gave these three reasons for not being able to accept the resolution. First, he said that the prime responsibility for conservation of resources rests with the provincial governments. Second, he said that the suggestion for federal action should come from the provincial governments. Third, he had grave doubts as to the success of a conference called to deal with all renewable natural resources.
In reply to his first argument with respect to the matter being the prime responsibility of provincial governments, I would ask the minister if this argument applied when the old age pension legislation was adopted, when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed, when health grants were undertaken, and other measures. Second, the minister says that the federal government should first be asked by the provinces to coordinate a conservation program. I would ask the minister who took the initiative with respect to the income tax agreements, national unemployment insurance, federal-provincial agricultural conferences and so on. I would ask who took the initiative in the formation of a commission to study conservation in Canada in 1909. I think the federal government acted wisely in all these cases and saw that if there was going to be a satisfactory state of affairs in these cases it was necessary that it should take the initiative and leadership and not wait for the provinces to ask the federal government to act in a certain direction. The third reason has to do with the doubts expressed by the minister as to the success of a conference

Conservation
called to discuss the conservation of all renewable natural resources. In that respect I will admit his argument has some validity. I think he has some grounds for argument there. It is a vast subject and possibly that would not be the best way to approach it in the first instance.
It might be better-and I agree with the minister to that extent-to call separate conferences on forest resources, on water resources and on soil and land resources, then at the appropriate time, call a final national conference which would be called together to correlate the work of these other conferences that have been going on throughout the years and to work out a draft for a final decision for a nation-wide conservation policy.
This year I have changed my resolution to this extent. I have changed the word "national" to "nation-wide". I am beginning to acquire the habits of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I do not want any implication of centralization or federal domination of the provinces and things of that sort. I thought if I copied the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this respect and changed the word "national" to "nation-wide", it would remove every possible opportunity to suggest that the federal government was going to dictate to the provinces. I am sure I am on sound ground in that respect because there is no one more fitted to present a problem so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of any province than is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Today I have time to deal with only one aspect of conservation policy, namely, forest conservation. Other members of this group- and, I hope, members from other parties- will deal with water conservation, soil conservation and land use. I also hope we shall hear something from members who are interested in wildlife conservation because all of these subjects are correlated. Wildlife depends on forest conservation, water conservation and land conservation. I trust we shall hear something from those who are particularly interested in wildlife in this country.
I want to give a few figures to support my arguments with respect to certain comments I am going to make in connection with forest conservation. I particularly want to bring to the attention of the house the national revenue derived from the forest industry and the federal government's investment in conservation programs for this resource in relation to others. I have obtained these figures from the bureau of statistics. They are for 1953. They were the latest figures I could get worked out in this form.

In 1953 agriculture gave a net added value to the economy of Canada of $2,113 million. The government's investments in agriculture, in the estimates, are $75,565,308 this year. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) looking at me and I suspect he might rise and say that the figure is not quite exact. May I explain, Mr. Speaker, that I have deducted the $2,167,783 that is in the minister's estimates for forest biology and scientific investigation into forest diseases. I can never understand why that matter was in the minister's department anyway. I find that mining in 1953 was responsible for a net added value to the Canadian economy of $1,101 million. That figure included primary mining, $791 million, and smelting and refining, $310 million. According to the estimates the government investment in mining this year is $22,832,265.
What is the situation with regard to forests? In 1953 the forest industry gave a net added value to the economy of Canada of $1,540 million made up as follows: Logging, $634 million; pulp and paper, $600 million; saw milling, $270 million. In this year's estimates the government invests in the forest industry in Canada $6,845,612 which also includes the money that is being expended by the science service of the Department of Agriculture for forest biology investigation. Now I think, Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates the improvident approach of this government with respect to investment in the protection of the forest industry in Canada, particularly in view of the revenue derived by the federal government from the forest industry. I think it is only common sense to increase the investment to ensure the permanency of that revenue.
I am quite confident, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's forest crop can only be maintained in the future, and in the very near future, by federal-provincial co-operation and the implementation of a nation-wide policy combined with a much larger federal investment in that industry. In total, if my information is correct, Canada has adequate timber reserves at this time but they are unevenly distributed. In some areas there is overcutting, in some areas there is under-cutting, and in some areas the cutting is in balance. However, we are rapidly approaching the point, particularly with the rapid development of the pulp and paper and lumbering industries, where we could quickly commence to dissipate our forest capital. Professor Zavitz of the Ontario forest service said two or three years ago that Ontario's total annual growth that year was destroyed by fire, insects and disease, plus 7 per cent depreciation of the forest capital by cutting.

Now, that is a very serious situation in one province. Ontario is doing some very excellent work in connection with forest conservation. All our forests are constantly threatened by fire. Unless large sums are spent to protect them, with the increase in population and the increasing number of people moving about in the woods, in bad years the protection of these forests will be beyond the capacity of some of our provincial governments. I speak from nearly 50 years' experience in living in the woods, operating a forest and lumbering industry, and working in a heavily timbered region. I have fought Are on many occasions. I recall shortly after the first world war witnessing the destruction of 100 million feet of timber in four hours and 30 minutes. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will know the district of which I am speaking. This fire consumed the timber between Summit lake and Slocan lake in one afternoon. The destruction occurred because the small fire which started the large blaze was not tackled early enough. The whole thing in forest protection is to get to the fire while it is small.
I shall never forget that experience because there was a magnificent mixed growth of fir, hemlock, cedar and white pine. The sight of 100 million feet of potentially commercial timber destroyed in four and a half hours is something that leaves an imprint on the mind of a person who is interested in natural resources. I might say, Mr. Speaker, the very first fire in which I had occasion to take part occurred when I was hiring horses to pack supplies. They were very unusual supplies in those early days. As a diversion I might say that was where I was first introduced to what was known in those days as Kootenay chowder. All the men in the camp away in the mountains build a big bonfire. In my supplies there were several cases of clams and several bottles of whiskey- that always went with fighting fires in those days. In case anyone is interested in the recipe, it is this. You get a four gallon kero-sine tin, dump into that a case of clams and three bottles of rye whiskey, add one tablespoonful of dynamite, boil the whole for one hour and serve hot with bannocks. I have given that experience because it was my first experience in fighting fire, and it was quite a dramatic business. Anyway, my experience in the early days, not recently, with a great many fires, convinced me that that is the primary and first problem with respect to the protection of our forests of this country.
Naturally, I think the federal government should assist the provinces in five or six ways as far as the protection of their investment in the forestry industry is concerned. As I said before, the first should be increased
Conservation
assistance against fire. The most complete protection against fire is the most urgent duty of any administration, whether federal or provincial, but at the same time it is the most difficult and the most costly. The danger increases with increasing population. Out of an average of 5,000 fires reported each year in Canada, almost 4,000 are now caused by human activities. Funds are required to provide access roads, trails, radio communication, lookout towers, planes, helicopters, ranger cabins, warning signs and other equipment.
Years ago, because of the cost of fighting fires and the new people in the country at the time, many of the fires above levels of about 5,000 feet were not attended to. It was usually said, "It is not economic to protect that timber." In many cases it was not commercial timber but it was a great mistake. Many of the flash floods that are occurring in British Columbia now, in the interior particularly, are occurring because the small brush, the smaller timber, was burnt out in the basins at the headwaters of those creeks. It is just as important to put a fire out whether it is up 6,000 or 7,000 feet as it is to put one out at the thousand-foot elevation. But it takes money to do it. Because of this menace the federal government should gradually increase its assistance to the provinces for fire-fighting service.
As said before, Mr. Speaker, from my experience I give that as the No. 1 problem with respect to the protection of our forests. I admit the federal government is making some grants at the present time under the Canada Forestry Act and by agreement with the province; but there should be increased appropriations for continuing our forest inventory. Some people are of the opinion that if you take stock of the timber you have in the country, once you have gone over the whole of Canada, you have your stock there and you simply deduct that which is destroyed by fire, that which is cut and that which is destroyed in other ways, and then you have the remainder. But if a timber inventory is to be worth anything we must have a continuous inventory of our timber resources in this country. That takes some planning and some extra cash.
The second thing that the federal government should do is to increase the grants to the provinces for carrying on a continued inventory of our timber resources across this country.
The third thing we should think about is forest management, research, both fundamental and applied research. While forest management is essential, the results of good management are not fully realized without

Conservation
respect to scientific utilization. In some cases I find men. who are very interested in conserving the forest and growing a crop of timber but who lose interest at that point. Unless we have scientific utilization a lot of the value of our forest management will be lost.
At this time I must pay a tribute to the work of the forest branch of the minister's department. I think his officials are doing an excellent job with their limited resources, and I repeat that "limited resources". I also must say that the forest products laboratories are doing a work in this country that is recognized by very few people. Their studies in utilization, which is most important, if applied by the industry generally, will save this country the waste of hundreds of millions of feet of timber. Do we realize that if we protect our forests against fire by the practice of the best management principles-suppose we are doing that without adequate scientific utilization- even today in Canada on the average only 50 per cent of the trees standing in the woods across the country as a whole are manufactured into products for sale to consumers? We have to do a great deal more than that, and I must say again the work that is being undertaken by the forest products laboratories is a work that, if used by those who are producing great quantities of wood in the lumbering industry and in the pulp and paper industry of this country, could produce in the future hundreds of millions and possibly thousands of millions of dollars of increased revenue from resources that are now being wasted.
Then, there is the question of reforestation, which is very important. I place that as fourth. In our section of the country, in southeastern British Columbia, we have natural regeneration. Our people generally practise a system of selective cutting. In other places it is necessary to have clean cutting because of the huge stands of virgin timber. There is no second growth underneath. Then there are other places where replanting is required. Anyway, I think there is increasing need for federal assistance, assistance to the nursery stations, assistance for replanting, and there is also a need for studies in erosion. With respect to logging roads, and things of that sort, difficulties are increasing very rapidly because they use very heavy equipment in the woods in these days and there is need for assistance. When they used horses for logging purposes they did not dig large trenches in the woods; they did not make those gullies which quickly become creeks in the springtime. There should be a considerable increase in the

assistance given by this government to the provinces for reforestation.
Then, last of all, in my opinion, education is of paramount importance. I know good work is being done by the forestry branch in this respect in the distribution of literature, press releases, radio addresses, pamphlets and booklets, and good work is being done by organizations such as the Canadian forestry association, by some of the universities, by some of the provincial governments and by some other private groups; but further funds are required-again limited funds-to carry on a more extensive program of public education and co-operation between governments, public bodies and individuals interested.
Without any question, Mr. Speaker, the facts prove the value of our forests of Canada, and prove that they warrant a much larger investment by the federal government in their protection and development. I do not suggest for a moment a sudden great increase in the estimates of the forest branch. I think we have an example of what can happen when you get a sudden increase in estimates. We all know of the wasteful expenditure of the Department of National Defence. In some respects it was occasioned by a sudden great increase in money available without any staff and without the planning necessary to use that money effectively. I am not suggesting a sudden great expansion in the estimates. I am suggesting, as a result of nation-wide conservation policy being developed, a gradual policy being devised and a gradual increase in the estimates of the forest branch of the minister's department, as a staff can be trained and as the program can be developed so that the funds will be spent efficiently and planned as a result of federal-provincial co-operation.
I have tried to illustrate, Mr. Speaker, as far as the forest industry is concerned, the need for a nation-wide conservation policy, protection and development of our forest resources as one facet of our renewable natural resources. Similar arguments will apply to water resources, soil and land resources and to wildlife. One of the greatest weaknesses today in facing conservation of natural resources is the number of governments and other agencies in this country who are concerned, and definitely concerned, in different phases of these problems.
Therefore in conclusion may I say that I think two things are essential for success, and I think it is essential that there be success in the near future. The first is the co-ordination of all these worth-while activities into one comprehensive and effective program, and

the second is that adequate funds be made available by the federal government to implement such a program.
Once again I urge the minister to accept the principle of my resolution and by so doing mobilize all the resources of the federal and provincial governments, of interested organizations, of individuals and of the people of Canada in support of a nationwide policy of conservation of all our renewable natural resources.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworlh (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the mover of this motion on his interest in the matter and on his knowledge of the subject of conservation. Not only is he a credit to his party, he is a credit also to his province and to his country.
This is a subject of great importance but I think we should realize at the outset that primarily it is a topic which comes under provincial jurisdiction and I think all our remarks should be governed by that salient fact.
I am entering this debate this afternoon to discuss two things in particular, the Humber valley conservation authority and the national parks program. Hon. members undoubtedly are aware of the fact that the Humber valley conservation authority made application to the province of Ontario and through it to the government of Canada under the Canada Water Conservation Act for the creation of flood control measures the necessity for which was brought about largely by the after-effects of the disastrous "Hurricane Hazel", Hon. members will remember that representatives of the authority saw the minister on January 31, 1955, and it was requested of them that a further report be made. Before the economic conditions and engineering aspects of this project could be determined it was withdrawn by the province of Ontario and at the present time the matter is in a state of flux.
I understand that a bill is before the Ontario legislature to amend the conservation authorities act and which would dissolve the Humber valley conservation authority and form the metropolitan Toronto and region conservation authority. I understand further that all the assets of and the appointments made by the Humber valley conservation authority would be taken over by the new authority. I should like to say that once the authority is designated and if further application is made to the federal government I as one of the members for the Yorks-I think all other members for the Yorks will feel the same way-will certainly use all my efforts to see that this worthy project is consummated.
Conservation
The advantages of having a Humber valley conservation program are many. First of all, dams would be erected to provide reservoirs which would hold 52 per cent of any major runoff which might result from a repetition of "Hurricane Hazel". This could come any time, and usually does come once in every 75 years on a major scale. Furthermore these dams would control the summer flow of the water of the Humber at that time of the year and would ease a very serious problem of pollution which is prevalent in the summer months when the level of the water is quite low.
Then again the dams would create lakes to form a recreational area. One will realize that with a population of almost two million the Toronto metropolitan area requires some form of recreational park system which would take care of the recreational needs of greater Toronto. Finally, such lakes as would be established by this project would supply the municipalities with necessary water, and some control would also help in the management of soil conservation.
I should like now to deal with the question of national parks. Section 4 of the National Parks Act sets out the general purposes of the act. This is called the dedication clause, and it reads:
The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to the provisions of this act and the regulations, and such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Last summer I had the privilege of visiting some of these national parks, and at this time I should like to speak particularly of the Banff national park, the Yoho national park and Jasper national park. I want to comment upon the splendid reception accorded me by the different park superintendents and their staffs. It was a real privilege to see with what enthusiasm these gentlemen treated their work. I think a tribute is owing to the minister and his officials for the way in which these parks are being run by such capable people.
There are certain fundamental prerequisites for a national park development. A national park must preserve unusual scenery or some natural wonder or historic feature of national importance. It must be of sufficient size to support adequately all forms of wild life native to the region. It should embrace only lands in their natural state for the most part and should not take in lands suitable for agricultural use. It should exclude mineralized or forested areas capable of commercial exploitation.
I appreciate the problems created by the number of visitors who are visiting the parks.

Conservation
This creates a great danger of spoliation and a greater danger of fire. An editorial in yesterday's New York Times comments upon the increasing use of United States national parks, and they put this problem quite nicely when they say:
The brutal fact is that the national parks of the United States are in dire danger of being loved to death, destroyed by the American people in their desire to see them, to travel through them, to camp out in them, to walk and ride over them! Present facilities are geared to handle about half the number of present visitors. If we are going to continue to have national parks that are worthwhile, and, equally important, that are to be adequately used by the people while being preserved and maintained for future generations, we have to embark on a large-scale protective and constructive program.
I have two observations to make. They are not meant as criticism, but I should like to call them to the attention of the minister. First, in my opinion there are not enough tourist facilities available. It seems to me that there are too few auto camps and hotels to look after the people who want to visit these parks.
My other complaint is that many people seem to be disappointed in the fishing. Perhaps I noted this particularly because I am extremely fond of fishing and I know that I was disappointed. One can realize the difficulties in this respect. After all, lakes that are accessible to highways are always fished out. I am told that the glacial silt which comes down from the mountains, particularly in the summer months, is not good for fishing and that the best time to fish is in the spring or the late summer. But I understand the department is taking steps to correct this situation. For example,
I was interested to note that in some lakes, such as the third Vermilion lake, the waters are being treated with "rotenone" powder to kill the suckers and to provide the water for trout. I was interested also to learn that the warden of Yoho park had said that Emerald lake was afflicted with suckers and a great deal of expenditure would be necessary to clean it out, but such action is being contemplated also, I am told.
Another matter is that the fish hatcheries at Banff and Jasper are being increased. At Banff two substations are being provided, and, for the first time in many years, one quarter of a million young trout will be available to stock the lakes in Banff park. Similarly, at Jasper, one half a million young trout are available and being developed at the Jasper substation. Again, research is being continued by biologists of the Canadian wild-life service of the national parks branch.
I think the minister and his officials are to be congratulated. I am informed that trout

can still be caught in the more inaccessible lakes and, of course, any real fisherman will tramp miles or go by packhorse to reach those lakes. It also means, of course one must have the time.
Now I should like to speak about national parks in Ontario. Hon. members particularly from that province, will be aware of the three small national parks, namely, the Thousand Islands national park, the one at Georgian bay islands and the small national park at Point Pelee. I think these parks are admirable, but I think also they are inadequate. In travelling through the vast panorama of lakes, streams and forests of incomparable and rugged beauty that constitute northern Ontario, I have thought that would be an excellent place for a national park. I understand that the procedure for establishing a national park is as follows. National parks can be established by an act of parliament amending the existing parks act. In establishing new parks the policy has been for the federal government to request the province concerned to take the initiative by offering a clear title. If the lands are suitable and measure up to national park requirements, the offer of the provincial government is accepted and necessary legislation will be passed by both federal and provincial parliaments.
The federal government and the province of Ontario have a splendid record of cooperation in many fields. I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he will consider approaching the province of Ontario for a great new national park in northern Ontario.
finally, I wish to say something on this question of overriding provincial jurisdiction in this field.
I must say regretfully and reluctantly that I cannot support this resolution. I cannot support it because I feel, as the minister said last year, this is something that primarily comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If a majority of the provinces requests such a conference, then I think we should certainly co-operate with them, but it is not something like a dominion-provincial conference where both governments have equal jurisdiction or co-ordinate jurisdiction, for example, in taxation both the federal government and the provincial governments have access to taxation because of the constitution, but surely this is something which comes within the province primarily. As I understand it, it is also on the agenda of the present conference which was and is being held between the provinces and the federal government.

But in the meantime, to be true to our responsibilities and to assist the hon. member for Kootenay West, who is doing such a magnificent job of bringing this up year after year, we should not only reconstitute or resuscitate-whichever word you want to use-the house standing committee on resources but also perhaps, as the hon. member for Kootenay West suggested last year, the government should again set up a commission on conservation for the necessary fact finding and research.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: should like to commend the hon. member for Kootenay West for once again bringing this question to the attention of this house and of the people of Canada, by means of his resolution that the government should consider the advisability of calling a dominion-provincial conference on conservation, with the view to the establishment of a nationwide policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada.
As the hon. member for York Centre was speaking, I was thinking of his own resolution not so long ago on education. In the discussion on that, the bugbear of dominion-provincial relations was brought up, and indications were that this was trampling on the field of the provinces. In the case of education and scholarships, the fact that none were given at certain levels meant that Canada was the loser, because it lost thus many of the brains that it needed. But in the case of conservation we have a problem in which we have a second chance. In the main we are dealing with renewable resources, built up by mother nature in this country over many years-trees, soil, rivers and so forth. Man has been destroying many of the things that mother nature took so long to build. But, as I say, we have a second chance, by carrying out a scheme such, as is proposed in this resolution.
One of the particular reasons why I am interested in this question of conservation is that in my own riding of Wellington-Huron, as an editorial in the Fergus News Record indicates, in the spring of 1957 will be completed one of the greatest conservation schemes that has been developed in this whole dominion. That is the Grand river conservation scheme. That scheme is part of history. As far back as 1905 an engineer named William Breithaupt in the city then named Berlin took time to walk up and down the banks of the Grand river. Even in those days when there were not so many people living there, he found a picture of erosion. Trees, trunks and soil were taken away and the banks scoured to the rock on that river, because of the fact that there was a rushing current
Conservation
during the spring and summer months. Later on, he found the stream shrunk to a very small rivulet which was polluted with sewage and so forth from all the cities that were established along that river. He decided to see if he could interest people in building some type of conservation scheme on this river. The original plan was for five dams. In 1939 the first dam was built above the town of Fergus-this was called the Shand dam, not too far from the village of Belwood. A few years later another dam was built at the headwaters of the river and was called the Luther dam. When the final dam is built on the Conestogo a conservation scheme will have been developed that will prevent terrific flooding in the spring with the crushing weight of water and ice that does so much damage and it will also establish and maintain a flow of water throughout the entire season.
At this time I should like to pay tribute to those spirited citizens in that district who, with very little monetary return to themselves, have carried through this project to a successful conclusion, who have not stopped working and who are turning their time and energies to building up once again the banks of that river as they were many years ago before all the trees and shrubs were taken away. They are making it once again a thing of beauty. They are developing parks, building beaches around the lakes and, what is probably more important than ever, they are establishing tree farms up and down the Grand river valley.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because, as I say, it is a pattern that might be followed in other parts of Canada. I maintain that if it had been followed along the Humber river valley the terrible catastrophe that followed "Hurricane Hazel" would not have been possible. Along many other rivers that night there were thousands of dollars' worth of damage. The flooding along the Nottawasaga river in southwestern Ontario that night resulted in over $500,000 damage done to bridges and culverts. With this pattern of damage and destruction, would it not be better to spend money on preventive measures so that the raising of disaster funds would not be necessary and municipalities and governments at all levels would not be called upon to assist in reinstating people, reconstructing buildings and moving them to other localities?
As I say, great tribute is due these people who have done so much to carry out this wonderful work. I might say also that their work has been of an economic nature, particularly in southern Ontario, something we did not expect. I have here an article from

Conservation
the January issue of Bush News entitled, "Security for Future Seen in Tree Farms." The article reads in part as follows:
Ontario now has 17 tree farms as a result of the certification of 11 woodlots in the Grand valley district of southern Ontario December 28. The woodlots, totalling 423 acres, were officially certified as tree farms at a ceremony in Galt, sponsored by the Huron district tree farm committee and the Grand valley conservation authority.
During the ceremony, James A. Vance, P.Eng., of Woodstock, chairman of the Canadian forestry association of Ontario and guest speaker, announced there now was a direct market in southern Ontario for pulpwood from the tree farms. He said the Ontario Paper Company which operates its giant mill at Thorold is planning to purchase 10,000 cords of pulpwood in the southern Ontario area next year. . . . He added that Canada's history was largely determined by trees. There were more than 4,000 uses for wood in daily life today. It goes into lumber, pulp, rayon, cellulose and plastic. The tonnage of wood used in world war II was greater than the tonnage of steel.
As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) indicated, there are very many organizations which are taking an interest in this question, and in that regard I should like to refer to the policy declarations and resolutions of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for 1953-54 and 1955-56. Under the heading "Water and Energy Resources" they have this to say in their 1955-56 policy declarations and resolutions:
The chamber urges the development of a program for the establishment of a national policy for the control, conservation and development of water resources for multiple purposes on which all interests can unite and on which a maximum of local and provincial autonomy is assured.
It is also rather interesting to note that some of our younger people are interested in this question. In the Globe and Mail of March 8, 1955, there is an article containing the following:
Katharine Merry, 17, of Milton, a member of the Halton 4-H beef calf club and 1954 winner of the Queen's guineas at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, said one-fifth of the original crop land of Canada has already been destroyed by improper agricultural methods and that more is being destroyed every day.
As this would indicate, Mr. Speaker, the question of conservation is bigger than just the holding back of the waters in our river valleys. We must consider the reasons that are contributing to the excessive flooding. We are all familiar enough with the history of this country to realize that when our forefathers came here it was pretty well all covered with forests but that in order to provide for food and crops for their way of life it was necessary for them to cut down the forests indiscriminately. This practice went on to a great extent. It was followed in our country in the same way as it has been all over the world with no thought being

taken for tomorrow. As an ancient Chinese philosopher once said: "If a man take no thought for what is distant he will find sorrow near at hand."
The history of the world indicates that soil erosion is part and parcel of the history of mankind. Great empires have risen only to fall because of the loss of their topsoil. The great Sahara desert, over which Rommel made his advances and retreats during the last great war, was at one time the granary of the Roman empire. Irrigation works were damaged by war. Vegetation disappeared, blowing sand and subsoil covered whole cities and the work of seven centuries was lost in less than 100 years.
We find the same pattern in Mesopotamia, Italy and China. However, we do not have to go back that far in history. In many cases our own handling of this particular matter has proved that we too are guilty of forgetting the fundamentals necessary for the protection of that very valuable asset, our topsoil. There are many districts in southern Ontario which at one time supported whole communities and which are now pictures of dilapidated and broken down buildings and eroded soil. The people have been forced to move because through improper methods of land use the land would no longer provide a livelihood for them and their families.
In the United States we have the tragedy of the dust bowl that occurred in the states of Kansas, Texas and southern Oklahoma where, in a period of excessive drought and in a region with the striking paradox of productivity and erosion, the topsoil that was left exposed began to drift and blow. In fact, on one occasion the sky over New York city was darkened by the dust from that dust bowl in those southwestern states of the United States. We sometimes say that that happened back in 1934. I do not know how many members read the Globe and Mail this morning, but in it there is a picture with the heading at the top, "Red Dust from Texas Blows into Windsor Area." It can happen again. Periodically we read that there is still danger of the same thing happening in our own western provinces as happened back in the thirties with the blowing of the soil.
In China we find an example of the two extremes. In northern China there is the Gobi desert, a vast barren land where nothing can grow. In central China there is the Chengtu plain where for 1,500 years intensive agriculture has been practised by following proper conservation, irrigation and soil protection methods. We too must realize the importance of a national policy of conservation of our renewable resources, a national policy which gives us a comprehensive picture right across the whole country.

We might take a leaf from the book of some of the countries that have joined the Colombo plan organization. Last summer there was completed by Pakistan-one of the countries that we consider to be a have not country-an aerial survey of their whole country. From this survey, together with the work of a ground crew, there has been worked out a comprehensive plan, just as we have mentioned here in our resolution, so that in the reclamation and the setting up of their country, in using these funds for technical assistance, they will not go at it in a haphazard way but will have a co-ordinated plan that will be followed right through in their entire country. I understand that Ceylon is doing the same thing.
I can see no reason why we in Canada could not have an aerial survey of that type. The other day I noticed a description of a new type of machine for reading the threedimensional camera which would give us a better picture and a better perspective of the means necessary to prevent the type of thing about which I am speaking. As was stated by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), many people are trying to bring this matter to the attention of this country of ours. In the London Free Press of recent date there appeared an item which was headed "Too much population; Professor broods on war from hunger" and which reads in part as follows;
A gloomy forecast of a hungry, overpopulated world, with nations possibly waging war to safeguard their food supplies, was placed before a section of the Royal Society of Canada . . .
The forecast was made by Professor D. A. Mac-Gibbon of the department of political economy, McMaster University, in a paper on the threat of overpopulation.
The professor concludes his remarks with these words;
He felt that the greatest possibility of delaying an actual global crisis in food supplies for some decades at least, lay in scientific progress and in the resolute employment of methods of conservation.
Speaking about things that are being done to decrease the number of acres of land we have, may I say that the practice that is being followed in some parts of southern Ontario is, in my opinion, wrong. I refer to the taking over by great industries of that wonderfully productive fruit and vegetable land in southern Ontario, something which man can never replace, something which it has taken years and years to build up and develop. Industry can grow and develop on land that would not be as suitable for the growing of fruit and vegetables. I think that practice is wrong and one that should be changed. General Smuts once said that erosion is the biggest question before the country, bigger than any
Conservation
politics. As I said, time is of the essence. Old mother nature does not stand still but she gives us a second chance to renew these resources which we have depleted. I feel that there should be a definite policy of conservation on a national level to promote systems of farm practice, tree culture, water supply and land settlement that will promote greater economic security for our dominion.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should be happy today that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has again brought this important resolution before the house. I can appreciate his doing so for I understand that he lives in an area surrounded by thousands of lakes and streams and hundreds of acres of beautiful forest, all of which he owns.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a question of privilege. May I say that I do not own all that. I live in a very small area within all that.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: It does not look like it by the pictures, Mr. Speaker.
In Nova Scotia where forest, lake and stream blend to make a great paradise, the people are extremely conscious of this important matter of conservation. Nova Scotia is a small province, composed of merely 21,000 square miles jutting out into the Atlantic ocean, practically surrounded by water, and it loses by erosion many acres of fertile soil to the Atlantic ocean, the Northumberland strait and the bay of Fundy.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Kootenay West could not have broadened this resolution to include the youth of this country from Newfoundland to Yukon. That is one resource in which we are experiencing a great drain. Particularly is that so in Nova Scotia. We train our young to graduate-to mention only two professions-in engineering and medicine. Then we lose most of them.


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: To the United
States.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: To the United States, but mostly to central Canada. This drain has been going on for many years.


Joseph Warner Murphy: He is wrong.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I hear the hon. member say that I am wrong. I should like to point out to him and to other members of the house that all one needs to do is to look at our universities where we have our presidents, the important doctors across this country, the engineers, the president of the national research council, and at many places like that where you will see our university graduates.
1S74

Conservation


Joseph Warner Murphy: Look at the emigration figures. Look at the emigration that is going to the United States.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: We have a small number going to the United States. Unfortunately we are not filling up this loss in Nova Scotia through immigration. When talking about conservation I think we should give the authorities, both federal and provincial, credit for the work they have already done. Over the years many millions of dollars have been spent all across this country. In some provinces the amount has naturally been greater than in others. But Nova Scotia has done reasonably well with respect to money spent on conservation. In 1952 some $715,000 were spent in six counties of Nova Scotia. Of that $715,000, $90,000 was spent in Annapolis and Kings counties. Again in 1953-54 $166,000 were spent, and $90,000 again were spent in 1954-55.


Mr. Nowlan:: They have a good member.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: That pleases the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). This land in Annapolis, Kings and Digby counties is the most important part of the province. It has been cultivated from away back in 1604 by the Acadians, and it was intensely cultivated by them from 1604 to 1755 at the time of the expulsion. There were periods when this land in the valley-this land that was reclaimed by the building of dikes and dams-was worth perhaps $200 an acre and at times it produced 50 bushels to 75 bushels of grain per acre and 2i tons to 3 tons of hay per acre.


Joseph Warner Murphy: What kind of grain?


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Probably not as good as that out west but it was so good that those Acadians sold it to the French in order to feed their army, and they had quite a business with Newfoundland over the years not only in grain but in beef.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I was wondering if it was oats or wheat because one has a much higher yield than the other.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: At the time the yield there was 50 to 75 bushels per acre. This may not compare so favourably with the highly cultivated land out west.
Now, in 1948 when the land saving program was undertaken as a co-operative measure between the federal and provincial governments the federal minister of agriculture said that since coming to Ottawa he was convinced one of the most important works to be done in Canada was the rehabilitation of the marshlands of the maritimes. He not

only said that but he put his words into action. Since that time some $6 million has been spent out of the $9 million allocated. More than half of the 90,000 acres of land included in the project have been either reclaimed or given some protection. Many of the dikes have been either built or rebuilt. There is one piece of land in the Annapolis valley that has been partially reclaimed. I would strongly urge that at this spot, the Granvilles, a dam be built which would save thousands upon thousands of acres of rich, fertile land. Part of this land is already diked, and has been diked since 1604, but these dikes have broken and the land has been ruined. If a dam were constructed at this spot it would obviate the necessity of keeping up the dikes or building more dikes. This project would compare favourably with the reclamation work in connection with the Shepody river dam, where some $2 million were spent to reclaim 5,000 acres. In this case many more thousands would be involved. In addition it would save thousands of acres which have been cultivated since the early Acadians. As a matter of fact, it is the oldest European settlement north of Mexico.
I should like to draw attention to the Musquodoboit valley. Much land was ruined, as well as forests, in the floods this year. We think the time has arrived when perhaps something should be done to save this beautiful part of the country. The Musquodoboit river runs for probably 20 miles into the country and empties into Musquodoboit harbour. We would suggest that there should be some plan for fresh water control here; that community pastures be organized; that bogs and swamps along the river be dredged; that there be the construction of farm ponds for irrigation and fire protection. We require better supervision of wood lots to give the small man an opportunity of supplementing his income, especially if he is a fisherman or a small farmer.
In Nova Scotia destruction from insects and aphids has been high, but probably not as bad as in our neighbouring province of New Brunswick. However, there should be a campaign to kill these things because one aphid will multiply and produce many millions. Over the years New Brunswick has done considerable spraying and I believe the results have been very good.
This is a big job. Probably our resources are not as great as some other provinces but they are needed all the more. I would suggest, therefore, that to stop the ghastly waste of our assets we have an intensive campaign to study onr forest policy, silviculture, forest

management, forest protection and forest utilization. Perhaps those aspects cover the field and we would ask that consideration be given to this.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: The
resolution we have before us at the moment has two important aspects. I believe one stresses the importance and necessity of the establishment of a nation-wide policy and the other suggestion is that, in order to implement that, there be a dominion-provincial conference called to discuss these matters. I am sure we are all aware of the importance of the principle that underlies this resolution. Our natural resources are those resources related to the soil, forest and water. They are of such importance that every effort should be made, and must be made, to conserve them. The task is of such tremendous importance and of such magnitude that co-operation between federal and provincial authorities is absolutely essential.
So far as British Columbia is concerned, I believe this principle is clearly understood and supported. I should like to refer to a brief submitted to the dominion government by British Columbia on December 14, 1953. The introductory paragraph to this brief is as follows:
The government of British Columbia in this brief proposes federal-provincial co-operation in the further economic development of the province and in the conservation of its natural resources. It submits that financial participation by the government of Canada in projects which will serve these purposes is warranted both by the national interest and by special considerations affecting British Columbia. It further submits that it is warranted by federal financial participation in projects in other parts of Canada.
In that introductory paragraph the idea of federal-provincial participation in these matters is set forth very clearly. As I have said, I believe it is of such importance that both the governments should co-operate in these particular matters.
In the province of British Columbia we have various resources. Of course, we have a varied economy and our resources cover pretty well everything that you can think of. Some of these have been mentioned in previous debates in this house. Just a few days ago we had a considerable debate on the hydroelectric potential of Canada, and in that debate the potential of British Columbia was mentioned.
The resolution before us emphasizes especially the establishment of a nation-wide policy of soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada. When we think of British Columbia we think first of all of the tremendous natural resources as evidenced in
Conservation
our various programs and in our forest resources. I am not going to take time this afternoon to refer in any detail to that particular aspect of the resolution; but certainly this matter is of vital importance to British Columbia, because it forms a considerable part of the income and also of the industrial capacity of our province. This afternoon I want to speak especially on soil conservation.
Because of the topography of British Columbia a very small percentage of our land is under cultivation, and a very small portion of our land is arable. Because of that fact the conservation of the areas that we have is of fundamental importance. In the brief which I have already referred to we find the following on page 2:
The province has an estimated area of 366,255 square miles, of which more than 240,000 square miles have been classified as alpine and barren.
Therefore we see that the arable land we have must be put to the best possible use and must be conserved in every possible way.
In other sessions I have referred to the main problem that confronts us in the Fraser valley, namely, the continual loss of some of our best land through river erosion. This continues to take a terrific toll in my particular area. I could mention various points this afternoon where it is posing very serious problems; but I might say that from Hope right down to the lower end of my riding the residents are faced with this particular situation. In view of the seriousness of the problem I feel that this particular resolution has a direct bearing upon the matter.
I mentioned Hope. I could also mention Agassiz. I have referred to this particular area on a number of occasions in the past and I have spoken of the hundreds of acres of the very finest agricultural land that are being lost through river bank erosion. A considerable amount of work is being done to try and protect the property of residents in that section. We do appreciate the contributions that have been made by the federal government in this regard. Throughout the years the government has seen fit to make contributions which have enabled the people of that area and the municipal authorities to carry out work that has been of real importance and has contributed much to the solution of the problem there.
I was also very pleased to read in the Agassiz-Harrison Advance that this year again the federal government has seen fit to make a substantial contribution to this end; but from Hope right down through Agassiz, Matsqui, Mission, Silverdale, Albion and right down to Pitt Meadows, the same problem obtains and is creating serious difficulties for the agricultural section along the river.

Conservation
I might say that at Mission there is one mill near the river in that village, and the owner of the mill spoke to me just last fall and told me of plans for expansion that he had been entertaining. In fact I believe the project had already been commenced but, because of the process of erosion, and the continual loss of land through erosion, he said he had decided to call off his plans for expansion, and his mill was in danger of being closed, with the consequent unemployment and loss of revenue to the community, through this unsatisfactory situation. I stood with some of the farmers of the Silverdale area and watched as great proportions of the land caved in and just disappeared while we were standing there watching. At Albion, houses will have to be moved. Developments of various kinds are in a serious position; valuable agricultural land is being lost. Then we come down to the community of Pitt [DOT]Meadows. I was told just last fall that in the past years an area of land of about 2,000 feet long and 100 feet wide had been swallowed up by the waters of the Fraser river. Therefore, it appears that in areas such as that, which is facing this serious problem, it would be well if the federal and provincial authorities could get together, could call a conference and deal with this matter and try to arrive at some satisfactory over-all policy so that this loss of agricultural land could be halted and the people could live with a sense of security, knowing that their property is being protected.
I was talking to some of the authorities of the diking commission. They are of the opinion that there is only one satisfactory long-term solution to this problem, namely, channelling of the river so that these conditions will be rectified. The task is so great that it is beyond the power of the municipal authorities in these various municipalities. It is so great that it is beyond the capacity of the province to handle. In the interest of the people the co-operation of every level of government is called for to take care of this situation.
As we know, the Fraser river is a navigable stream. I believe that as time goes on it will play a great part in the industrialization of that entire section. We have already heard of its tremendous fishery resources. We have heard something of the hydroelectric potential on the river if the problem of the fisheries could be overcome. It is also going to contribute in a large way to the various industries that will be established along that section of our country. Therefore I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the interest of such sections as I have mentioned this resolution calls attention to a very important

and widespread need, namely, a nation-wide policy with regard to these matters.
There is in my riding another problem which has been called to the attention of the house on other occasions. However, I think it fits into the picture created by this resolution. I refer to the Vedder river problem. We had high hopes in the Fraser valley that the water conservation and control act which was passed several years ago was going to solve this particular problem. In fact my predecessor had every hope and expectation that this particular project would come under that act. However, we have been advised by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) that it does not come under this particular measure. Although it does not come under the operations of that measure a problem is still created and we feel that it could fit in and should be bound up with this whole problem of conservation of our soil and land use in Canada.
The problem which confronts the residents of that particular area is that the Vedder river is gradually filling up and its waters are spreading. Instead of following a defined channel they are just meandering along and it is felt that the time will come, possibly in the near future, when instead of being confined in any way this river will overflow its banks and flood a great section of the agricultural area of the Fraser valley.
I might say that we already have our problems there with practically a 100 per cent freeze of our strawberry crop. This is creating a tremendous problem for our people and certainly we would hate to think that in the near future they will be faced with another one by the overflowing of the Vedder river and the inundation of vast areas of our land.
I have called this matter to the attention of the federal authorities but it seems that they cannot find any way to fit this into federal policies and bring it under any legislation covering resources and so on. Nevertheless it constitutes a real threat to that section of the country. One objection was that no federal property was involved and therefore it did not seem to come under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal authorities. I might mention that camp Chilliwack is in the area, and also the Tzeachten Indian reservation and the Coqualeetza Indian hospital.
These are all federal government installations, and the picture in connection therewith is changing. I was speaking to some people in that area on New Year's day and they said that although in the past it was felt

that there would be no danger to federal installations in that area, the picture has changed and today there is a possibility in the event of flooding that some of these properties would suffer. Therefore I call the attention of the ministers under whose departments this matter might come to this state of affairs and suggest that they take another look at this particular situation.
At the close of last session I was sorry to receive a letter from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources stating that they could not see their way clear to being able to enter this picture and give assistance in connection with this particular problem. It may not be considered economically desirable or feasible, but yet I submit that it is not desirable to have hundreds of acres of our farming land flooded with the consequent destruction of private installations and development in that section.
Apparently at one time this watershed to which I have referred was under federal control and as such royalties and stumpage fees were paid to the federal authorities. Apparently this situation existed up until 1930 and the records would seem to indicate that at least $400,000 was collected by the federal government in stumpage fees and royalties on timber removed from this area. That did not take into account the amounts that would be paid in the form of personal and corporation income taxes and so on. Therefore I submit that the federal authorities have some responsibility in the matter because one of the contributing causes is the logging operations which were carried on in that section and from which the federal government received its share.
Without doubt the conservation of our soil, water and forest resources is a matter of urgent importance. It has been pointed out by the mover of the resolution and by other speakers in this and other debates that there is not too much time to lose, that the matter is urgent and therefore that we should support the resolution before the house. I should like to read the last paragraph in a letter which I received from the Hon. W. K. Kiernan, minister of agriculture of the province of British Columbia, dated January 20, 1955, as follows:
While I was at the dominion-provincial agricultural conference In Ottawa in early December I again raised the point of no unified conservation policy by which the federal and provincial governments could co-operate in the conservation of our soil and other resources. It is time that we had in this country a conservation policy that was applicable to all areas of the country on an equitable basis with participation of the three levels of government. Anything that you may do to further this line of thought would be greatly appreciated.
Conservation
That would indicate that the provincial authorities of British Columbia are behind such a resolution and that they would favour this resolution now before the house. I have pleasure this afternoon in commending the hon. member for introducing this resolution and indicating our support therefor.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in connection with this resolution. I listened with deep interest while the junior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) was speaking. I was particularly interested in what he said regarding the marshlands. We in New Brunswick perhaps are not as vitally interested as are the people of Nova Scotia but we have had some benefit from the marshlands act. As the hon. member was speaking I was reminded of the debates we have had in this house at different times on the marshlands and I recalled of course the many times that my good friend, the former member for Cumberland, Mr. Black, spoke on this matter. As a matter of fact he has been called by some the father of the marshlands act of the maritimes.
This act was passed as a sort of balance to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. The maritime provinces like the other provinces of Canada were contributing extensively to P.F.R.A., and the marshlands act was a sort of return, and a most acceptable one in our section of the country.
I wish to say that I support this resolution wholeheartedly. This is the fifth time the hon. member for Kootenay West has moved this resolution in the house, and I have spoken on it several times. I have always been greatly in sympathy with the motion and with its context. I do not think there is any subject in Canada that should receive more support or more interest from the people than this particular subject of conservation. Of course, volumes have been written on this subject; it has been dealt with in books and pamphlets time and time again.
In 1948 and in 1949 the Canada Forestry Act was passed and this act went a long way towards assistance in conservation in this country. It was hailed by the people and the press across this country as a great stepping stone in the matter of conservation. I remember the debate at that time and I remember the interest that was taken in the press. But after six or seven years I realized that, whilst this act was designed to meet the conservation needs to a certain extent, still it has not gone nearly as far as we should hope. The whole question of the use of our forests, the land use and water supply is one upon which the whole economy of Canada rests and, as has been so well pointed out by some of the speakers this afternoon,

Conservation
if by carelessness we destroy these great assets of ours, we destroy ourselves as a country and we place our country in a very poor condition.
As the hon. member who moved the resolution has very well said, time is of the essence as far as conservation is concerned. We have time on our hands in Canada, and by that I mean that, whilst older countries have dissipated their great assets, we in Canada have not dissipated them all or to the extent they have in older countries and we still have time to save these great assets of the forests, of the land, of our wildlife and streams, if we at the present time recognize the great responsibility we have not only to ourselves but to future generations. After all, the country does not belong to the generation that is living at the time, but it belongs to the future. It is the duty of every succeeding generation to conserve for the future that of which they themselves have an abundance.
No country in the world is blessed with natural resources such as we have in this country. Speaking for my own province, we have been greatly blessed with natural resources. I was very much interested in the discussion of our forests. Our forest assets of New Brunswick are our greatest assets. As a matter of fact, we might say that the three f's-the forests, the farms and the fisheries-are the greatest assets in the maritime provinces. We have hoped to have other industries, as the hon. member for Halifax has stated, that would keep the young men living from leaving our provinces. Such industries have not come to us as yet, but we still have hopes for the development of our mining industry and for the possibility of development of other industries through the use of our abundant water supply for the development of electric power, and we may be able to keep in our own part of Canada that great asset mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax.
The importance of the pulp and paper industry to New Brunswick and to Canada at large has already been mentioned. It is the largest industry that we have in Canada. I was reading the other day a report of the pulp and paper industry which said it was first in employment of labour in this country, it was first as far as total wages are concerned, it was first as far as the export value of its products is concerned, and first as far as the total values of production and of capital investment are concerned. So the forest products industry is the first industry in Canada and is an industry which should receive at least the same attention as any other industry.

I think the argument can be very well made that because forest products are our greatest industry and because the dominion government does receive very large revenue from the forest industry, then the dominion government is vitally interested in the preservation of our forests, whether they belong to the province or the dominion. It is greatly interested and must bear its full share in the preservation of this asset. In 1946, when the forestry act was passed, the dominion was contributing in the neighbourhood of $2J million. I remember a speech at that time in which it was stated that this was only a drop in the bucket and it was estimated that before 1955 and 1956 the total amount of money spent for the conservation of the forests in this country should be in the vicinity of at least $100 million. Of course, this would not include the amount which would be spent by the provincial governments and also by the industry itself, which up to that time, 1946, had contributed practically three quarters of the money spent on forest conservation.
I shall not take up the time of the house this afternoon in discussing the different enemies of our forests. They have been mentioned before. Fire, of course, is one of the worst. I recall that in the debate in 1949 our leader, speaking about fire protection, suggested that the federal government should take a far greater interest in the protection of our forests and he suggested that airplanes should be used to a greater extent and that they should be used with far greater effect in carrying not only material for putting out fires but also men who could be moved from one place to another to put out our forest fires. I do not think enough of this has been done in the last six or seven years. I know that in my province we have not been uskig the airplane much for firefighting, nor do I think it has been done in other parts of Canada.
He also spoke about waste. There has been a great deal done in recent years to eliminate the waste of much of our forest materials. Sawdust is now being used for fuel in British Columbia, I believe. It is also being used for other purposes in other provinces. But I still see great mountains of sawdust in my own province which I think could be utilized, thus doing away with a great waste. Different parts of trees are also not used, and they become a great fire hazard in the woods.
I also remember that in the former debate Mr. Gibson, then the member for Comox-Alberni and a man with great experience in lumbering, spoke about reforestation. He mentioned the fact that there are many areas from which practically every tree has been

stripped. No trees were left to bring about the natural reforestation of the areas. At that time he said there should be a section in the Criminal Code making it a crime for any man to strip a forest area and leave no trees for seeding purposes.
This is a very important matter, and it comes back to the recommendation of the hon. member for Kootenay West, namely that more is required by way of education. It is a matter of education. I know of farmers in my own province who had good areas of trees but who have stripped every tree off these areas, not realizing that they were leaving nothing for seeding. Spruce and other trees will not grow again in those areas. If boys were taught more in school about our forest assets and the neoessity for reforestation I think it would be a great help in assisting to bring about conservation.
There was also mention of pests. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) mentioned the terrible destruction that occurred in the province of New Brunswick, and how a real catastrophe was averted. In 1949 it was discovered that there was an infestation of the budworn pest in the northern part of our province. Immediately the large lumber companies and the government of New Brunswick became alert to the necessity of doing something. I am sure all members here know of the splendid fight that was waged to save the great forest area in the northern part of our province. Hundreds of square miles of forest would have been destroyed if it had not been for the effort that was made.
In travelling through the area myself I saw where six airfields had been constructed right in the virgin forest. Airmen were brought in not only from all parts of Canada but from the United States and Europe, and many thousands of barrels of D.D.T. were sprayed on the forests. Through these efforts the forests of northern New Brunswick were saved and probably the economy of our province as well. I suppose this was one of the greatest conservation efforts ever undertaken in our country. The federal government deserve credit for the assistance they gave. The provincial government deserves credit, and the large lumbering and pulp and paper interests in that part of the country also deserve credit. They worked together and were successful in their efforts.
With respect to education, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that there are not enough specialists in this country to look after forest conservation. I think we should have more trained foresters, more men trained to do the work of conservation. In the Canada
67509-10dJ
Conservation
Forestry Act "forest experiment" is defined as meaning the study of silviculture, forest pathology, forest entomology, forest fire protection and many other technical branches. I am sure there is no question in anyone's mind that where these technical subjects are concerned we must have trained men who are able to look after these matters.
Ia this morning's Gazette I was quite interested to read a Canadian press dispatch from British Columbia headed "More Forestry Students Said Pressing Need". The article points out that while there are 6,300 students at the University of British Columbia only 125 are registered in the faculty of forestry. The article then refers to Dr. Allen, dean of the faculty of forestry of the University of British Columbia, and has this to say:
Dr. Allen said it is conservatively estimated that in 20 years British Columbia will need 2,750 graduate foresters, 2,200 more than there are today.
If that number will be needed in British Columbia alone we get some idea of the great need throughout the whole of Canada for men technically trained in forestry. In our own province of New Brunswick we have had a school of forestry at the University of New Brunswick for over 50 years. Our graduates have gone not only to all the provinces of Canada but to the United States and, in fact, all over the world. Today we are receiving students from every province in Canada, the United States, Australia, Europe, and especially from Great Britain. They are coming to the university to take the forestry course there.
We often hear it said in the house that scholarships should be given at different universities. I do not think there is a greater need for scholarships in any branch of study today, and I would recommend to the consideration of the federal government the provision of forestry scholarships in our different universities. There are three universities which teach forestry, British Columbia, Toronto and New Brunswick. I cannot think of anything that would be better for the conservation of our forests than to have more of these men to assist in that work.
It is not my intention to take any more time this afternoon. I should like to speak about the effect that the lack of conservation of our forests has had on some of our fisheries, but I will have an opportunity to do so later on. I would simply say that the fact that the forests have been cut down along the banks of many of our streams in New Brunswick, the maritime provinces generally, Gaspe and even in Newfoundland has meant that streams, up which the Atlantic salmon go to spawn, are more or less drying up with a resulting decrease in the catch of salmon.

Conservation
Only last year the catch decreased by over 50 per cent. Men who have studied the problem contend that one of the reasons is the fact that these streams are drying up and that the spawning grounds of the salmon have been taken away from them. These are all matters which deserve careful consideration. I agree entirely with those who have this afternoon contended that this is a matter in which the dominion government is vitally interested. I am strongly in favour of the resolution.
(Translation) :


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) upon introducing his resolution. We are certainly grateful to him for providing us with an opportunity to discuss a problem of such significance.
As the hon. member pointed out, this motion is twofold. It involves, first of all, the establishment of a nation-wide conservation policy, and ensures its implementation through a federal-provincial conference. We all realize how important it is for us to make wise use of those natural resources which are the very foundation of our national economy.
Agriculture is based on use of the land, and our industries utilize electric power which could hardly exist without this use of the land. The Canadian government has long understood the importance of this problem and, in this connection, has implemented various steps in those territories over which it has direct jurisdiction.
Besides, the federal government has had legislation passed to favour all conservation projects that provinces could put into effect, such as, for instance, the Canada Forestry Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, all of which, to mention only those few, were adopted at the request of government departments to promote conservation of our natural resources.
Moreover, throughout the country, various agencies not connected with our governments, either federal or provincial, also carry out surveys and publicity projects to promote and help soil conservation.
I could not let this opportunity pass without Mentioning the enormous and very important part played in this field in the province of Quebec by the Quebec Forestry Association and our numerous 4-H clubs.
We all realize, as members who spoke before me indicated, the importance of the

conservation of our soil, of our water resources, in brief, of all our natural resources.
The motion that has been submitted to us, Mr. Speaker, would entrust this responsibility to the central authority, calling as it does for a national conservation policy. Any legislation that might come out of this motion, if it is passed, would make the central authority the primary warden of our natural resources, with ten foremen in charge of the administration of those resources under the jurisdiction of the federal government. After all, in order to be efficient, the principle of a nation-wide policy implies a central power or administration, and at the same time implies some measure of control.
The motion submitted by the hon. member is perhaps not comprehensive to that extent and has no other purpose than to interest the provinces in the establishment of a national program of conservation under which they might benefit from subsidies while remaining free to act as they would wish. In either case, I can see reasons of a constitutional, social and economic nature, which would prompt me to vote against the resolution.
Everybody here knows that, under the constitution, or rather under the British North America Act, sections 109 and 92-or more precisely under subsection 5 of section 92, not only do provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of our natural resources, but they are exclusive owners of these resources.
Federal government participation, as recommended in the motion of the hon. member, is a direct encroachment upon provincial autonomy, in a field which we have always regarded as a strictly provincial prerogative. Jurisdiction over these matters is restricted to provincial authorities, and I submit that under present conditions it is of paramount importance for the federal parliament to reject any attempt at infiltration into this sector of Canadian economy.
Canada's present expansion, and the technical advances of modern science, coupled with an influx of capital investment warranted and encouraged by the prospects of the country, have largely contributed, over the past decades, to the development of our resources from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The increasing pace of the development of those resources has meant huge revenues to some provinces, revenues so huge, we might say, that they rank among the main items in provincial finances. We all know that the last federal-provincial conference again emphasized the pressing need for provincial governments to find alternative sources of

revenue to meet the requirement's arising from their various responsibilities.
It is therefore imperative that the provincial government retain its authority in the field of conservation and development of its resources, so that it may enjoy the necessary discretion to supervise the utilization of its soil, forests, water resources and lands.
Only thus will the provinces fully benefit from the revenues arising out of the proper development of natural resources in a country as prosperous as Canada. We have already seen that some provinces, which were hindered a few years ago in the discharge of their responsibilities by the lack of sufficient revenues, have greatly improved their financial position as a result of the development of their natural resources.
Nobody will deny the financial advantages which Alberta has derived from the development of her natural resources. I also believe that the improvement in the financial situation of British Columbia-whose per capita revenue is now greater than that of the province of Quebec, with a larger population and a larger territory-is the result of the development of her natural resources.
In short, a national conservation policy could seriously hinder the collection of revenues which provinces can derive from the development of their own natural resources.
In addition, a national policy in the field of conservation implies a measure of uniformity that would hardly be consistent with the differences in climate and topography existing from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
True, a national conservation policy could perhaps be profitable from the economic standpoint, but I maintain that we must take into account other factors besides the economy because quite often in various parts of the country the conservation of our soil, the development of our forests and water resources are definitely linked with certain political or social principles, which differ in the various provinces that make up this country.
The conservation of our resources must take into account certain regional characteristics. For instance, intensive colonization compels local authorities to promote forest development for reasons particular to the district where colonization is taking place. On the other hand, we know that specialized farming in certain districts requires proper
Conservation
irrigation. Besides, our forest industry must be protected by means which may differ according to the area concerned. Surely methods of pest control in the woodlots of the province of Quebec are unlike those which might be used to control tree pests in the forest lands of the west coast, because the trees themselves and atmospheric conditions are different.
In addition, the various provincial governments are in a better position to look after the development of our water resources.
It may be that a provincial government wishing to develop its resources more than another province will allow the production of water power to take place at the same time as some industrial developments in order to decentralize industry. Conservation and development of our natural resources may be either nationalized or left to private enterprise. Some provinces might also look for immediate revenues through the development of natural resources while others might be more interested in the stability and security resulting from a slow development of natural resources. Moreover, in the province of Quebec, a great part of our education is connected with the development of those same natural resources. In fact, the agricultural college of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and some faculties of the University of Montreal and the university of Quebec are closely connected with the utilization of our different natural resources in that province. I believe also that a national conservation policy could jeopardize the outcome of these various programs which, in my province, are closely linked with university education.
Of course this does not mean that the central government should not get more interested in the conservation of our soil, in the cultivation of our lands and in the maintenance and development of our power resources. Already the Department of Transport, by recommending the St. Lawrence seaway project to this parliament, has largely contributed to promote and further the development of resources in northern Quebec.
I wish to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) for asking this parliament to vote the necessary subsidies for the construction of a railway in the lake St. John district, an improvement which no doubt will create an atmosphere definitely con-

Conservation
ducive to the conservation and the development of the tremendous forest reserves of that district.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), indicated that sometimes airports can help in the control of forest fire, disease or anything detrimental to them. There again, we must congratulate the federal Department of Transport for understanding that need.
As far as we are concerned, in the Charlevoix district which I have the honour to represent here, we are glad to express gratitude to the minister for having facilitated the building of that airport.
No doubt, the construction of a railway linking Charlevoix to the north shore will be another step which will greatly contribute to the development of the natural resources of that part of the province of Quebec.
Thus, since the federal government, through its different departments, has, within its jurisdiction, the means to further the conservation and the development of our resources, I intend to propose an amendment to the motion laid before the house by the hon. member. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) :
That all the words after the word "advisability'' be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "of taking, in co-operation with the provinces, the necessary steps to establish a national inventory of the natural resources of the country with a view to permitting the federal government to grant the maximum assistance within its jurisdiction to the various provinces on soil, forest, land and water conservation."
(Text) :


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melforl):: am very happy this afternoon to have the opportunity of saying a few words in support of the important resolution which once again has been moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West. It is obvious to all of us that this is a very important question, and one which has had the unanimous endorsement of all those hon. members who have spoken up to the present time. It is hard to deal with all of the phases which would normally go into a comprehensive conservation program. It is my intention to deal with only one or two aspects of what such a program should take into account. I should like to deal with the soil and water factors which are of such importance in our economy.
I believe that the conservation problem has not had all the attention that ordinarily it
[Mr. Maltais.l
would have had, had we not been placed in such a favourable geographic position. But as our park areas become denuded of trees, were it not for weather conditions, the effects of freezing, which tend to make erosion less of a factor than it is in many other countries of the world, we would find ourselves in a much more difficult position. I believe we have deluded ourselves to some extent into believing that our agricultural and arable lands will go on indefinitely as a sort of fixed asset, and also that their productivity will continue unabated. Unless we introduce some comprehensive conservation program in this country we know from past experience in other places that that of course will not be so. We are told that the nation that neglects its soil will soon see that soil completely depleted, and of course with that ultimately the destruction of the nation itself. History records that the depletion of the soil has been a greater contributing factor to the downfall of a country than have been high taxation and other things of political consequence. Therefore it is important that we take into account the great need for an over-all comprehensive conservation program in Canada.
In western Canada we of course have had this question brought into focus because of our experience during the early and mid 1930's. During that time we had in that part of Canada what has commonly come to be known as the dust bowl area. It is one of the amazing phenomena of modern times, I believe, that this land has returned to its productivity. It is hard to understand after almost years of continuous soil erosion because of high winds. The land was abandoned, and the people never expected to go back again.
However, those of us who were there and saw what actually happened can appreciate the value of a conservation program similar to what was set up under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act back in 1938. At that time we saw soil erosion at its worst. The wind blew holes in level ground the size of this chamber. School children were let out of school at noon week in and week out because of the intensity of the dust. They could not see. It was almost like night. This was disastrous to our economy. Think of the years and the lives that were wasted. People had to leave the land, go into other industries, move to different parts of the country to make a new start. These are some of the things we should try to avoid if at all possible.

In spite of those disastrous times I have mentioned we in this country still have a tendency to think of our natural resources as oil wells, mineral deposits, timber lands, and so forth. Yet oil wells have a very embarrassing habit of going dry. Mines end up as empty holes in the ground. The only renewable resource, the only really important resource, is our land. After all, if it is properly cared for it will go on producing indefinitely. As a matter of fact, under proper management I think it can safely be said that its productivity increases.
This is no local problem it is a national problem. Because it has been tackled more or less on a local basis throughout different parts of the country we have a tendency to think that it is a local problem rather than a national problem. Under the British North America Act certain jurisdiction in this regard is given to the provinces. Experimental and scientific research comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In times of national disaster, in times such as I pointed out happened in western Canada during the dust bowl days of the 1930's, the problem was such that no province by itself could cope with it. Therefore the federal government recognized that it was beyond the capacity of a province and they came into the picture.
In 1938 there was set up in the prairie provinces the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, commonly known as P.F.R.A. To give some indication of what was accomplished under the most adverse conditions imaginable, in 1938 and 1939 it took 58 acres of land to pasture one head of livestock in this area, which comprises some several million acres in southern Saskatchewan, and I imagine the same thing applied to southern Alberta and to other places that experienced similar conditions. After the act came into force it was a matter of only a short period of time until three head of cattle could be grazed successfully on the same 58 acres of land. That again is a clear indication of the great value of the practical application of scientific know-how to land and soil management.
We have now some 53 of these community pastures, as they are called, comprising several thousand acres, but the amazing thing is that in Saskatchewan there are some 23 million acres of land considered to be unfit for agricultural purposes. This is located in what is known as the brown soil zone. The P.F.A.A. people have carried out wide investigations and surveys of this area and have come up with statistics to prove that farmers cannot survive on this type of soil. Yet of those 23 million acres in Saskatchewan, 15 million acres are under cultivation. There
Conservation
is great need for conservation measures to get out of that land the production of which it is capable. In other words we are wasting some 23 million acres of land in Saskatchewan, land which could make a great contribution to the economic stability of this country.
During the depression years in Saskatchewan, brought about by the factors I mentioned a moment ago, it cost the people of Canada in the way of direct relief $184 million, to say nothing of the tremendous losses in capital investment. The P.F.R.A. made a great contribution to checking that tremendous loss. Approximately $76 million was spent under that act, money well spent.
We must remember that hunger is still the greatest problem in the world today. Considerable research has been done by FAO in this regard. We talk about overproduction, surpluses of agricultural products and so on, but I do not think anyone who has investigated the problem will say there is overproduction. Rather it is underconsumption. We need a distribution system to see that our production gets into the hands of the people who need it.
It is estimated by the food and agriculture organization that there are some 2-7 billion acres of arable land in the world. It might be interesting to note that in Canada, where we consider we have an unlimited number of acres, only 3 per cent of our land is arable. That is quite a small percentage when we consider the situation prevailing in other countries. For instance, in the United States some 24 per cent of the land body is arable; in the United Kingdom the arable land constitutes 30 per cent of the total land body, and in some of the Scandinavian countries the percentage is as high as 65.
It is important that we try to utilize to the best advantage all the land we have. On the basis of 2-7 billion acres of arable land in the world there is only 1-1 acre for each individual which is far below the minimum required for the decent nutritional standard we would expect. I should like to quote from a report by Dr. K. W. Neatby, director, science service, Department of Agriculture, which appeared in the Agricultural Institute Review of June, 1954. I am reading this because I believe it points up the importance of utilizing to the best of our ability all the arable land in this country. Dr. Neatby had this to say:
Our population is increasing at a rate of about 2 per cent per year, our consumption of food is at least 80 per cent of our total production, and our production is not increasing anything like 2 per cent per year, if it is increasing at all. In other words, we are rapidly approaching a position of mere self-sufficiency. Can we expect a 2 per


Mr. H. M. Baifen (Humber-Si. George's):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West I intend to confine my remarks to our forest resources in Canada. Here in my notes I have numerous figures which I may state at the beginning have been taken from the dominion bureau of statistics,
fMr. Bryson.]
from departmental reports and from the reports of the pulp and paper association of Canada.
I believe that in order to ascertain the degree of conservation that is required in Canada at this particular time as far as our forests are concerned, it is necessary first to get some idea of the extent of our forest resources, then to have some idea of the value which our forest resources have in our economy and, third, the rate at which our forest resources are being depleted and the problems of conservation they present. Then I should like to speak for a moment with regard to the procedures that are now being adopted in relation to those problems of conservation. Finally I should like to say a few words about conservation in my own province, following the same five points.
Our forests in Canada extend over a very wide area and are exceeded only by those of two other countries, namely the tropical forests of Brazil and the forests of Russia. Our forests in Canada extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, at times narrowing to a width of 600 miles and at other times widening to a width of 1,300 miles. The total forest area is approximately one and a half million square miles or 42 per cent of the total land area.
This total forest area is divided into two categories. One is called the unproductive area. This area lies along the northern fringe of vegetation and has an area of 670,000 square miles, or 45 per cent of the forested area of Canada. I sometimes disagree with this term "unproductive area." I think that is the terminology of the foresters. It may have some value in the sense that it means a portion of our forests which does not produce merchantable timber, but the unproductive area is unproductive only in that sense, because this unproductive area of our forests does give to us a large part of the habitat of our wildlife, and also gives us great controls to regulate our water flow.
Of the productive area, 830,000 square miles or 55 per cent of our forested area, it is here we find that the forest industries are getting most of their raw materials. This productive area again is subdivided into two classes, one called the accessible area, having an area of 580,000 square miles or 70 per cent of the productive area. The inaccessible area, or 30 per cent of the productive area, is an area of 250,000 square miles. This term "inaccessible" is of course nothing more than a relative term, because the areas that are today considered inaccessible may tomorrow be accessible by the building of roads or railways or the establishment of mills or the putting of new equipment on the market.

Of our trees in Canada today, there are roughly 177 different types. Of these, 55 have commercial value, and of these 55 we have 23 softwoods and about 32 hardwoods.
Having had a look at the extent of our forest resources in Canada, I should like for a moment to spend some time on the value of the forest resource in our economy. If we took productive area alone, 830,000 square miles, and worked this out, we would find that this would be equivalent to 180 acres of productive forest land for each family of five. Based on forestry estimates, 180 acres would produce in perpetuity about 60 cords of wood annually, which at present prices would be equivalent to $1,500 per year. If we were to take the importance of the pulp and paper industry in our economy, which uses about one quarter of the actual consumption of wood, we would realize that of the money which Canadians earn, one dollar out of every eight is earned by those engaged in the pulp and paper industry. In the approximately 80 companies now operating 130 mills in seven provinces in Canada, over 300,000 men are employed directly while many more thousands are employed indirectly.
Without this great product Canada would not be the international trader that she is. The value of the pulp and paper industry to Canada exceeds the value of wheat and all grains. It is equal to the total national output of all minerals. Every hour of the day here in Canada 1,000 tons of paper and pulp is being made by our mills, having a value of approximately $140,000, or a total of $1-1 billion a year. Twenty per cent of all exports are made up of paper and pulp products, and of our exports to the United States one-third are from the paper and pulp industry.
We might have a look for a moment at the value of our forests with regard to personal holdings. It has been said that 7 per cent of the forested area in Canada is privately owned. I agree that this, of course, is correct. The area of privately owned land is 97,000 square miles, but I would suggest that, although this statement is true, it does not give a true picture of the actual holdings, for the simple reason that the land that is now privately owned is situated in that part of Canada where the most prolific growth can be obtained. I would suggest therefore that the number of square miles of land privately owned should not be calculated with reference to the total forested area but should be calculated with reference to the productive area.
If we were to do that, we would find that the privately owned land represents 12 tier 67509-101
Conservation
cent of the total productive area. On the other hand, these privately owned lands are among the most accessible forest lands in Canada, and I would therefore go on and say that not only should the private lands of Canada be calculated with reference to the productive area but also with reference to the accessible productive area. We would then find that the privately owned lands would form 17 per cent of the accessible productive area.
In different provinces various percentages of forest land are privately owned. In Prince Edward Island, for example, nearly all the forest land is privately owned. In Nova Scotia 73 per cent of the forest land is privately owned, half of which consists of areas over 1,000 acres. In New Brunswick the percentage is 50 per cent; in Newfoundland 16 per cent; in Quebec 6 per cent; in Ontario 8 per cent; in Manitoba 7 per cent; in Saskatchewan 7 per cent; in Alberta 7 per cent; and in British Columbia 4 per cent. May I say that these percentages refer to total forested areas.
I should like now to have a look for a moment at the rate at which it is calculated that our forests are being depleted. For the ten years 1941 to 1950 the average utilization was 2 [DOT] 843 billion cubic feet. For the ten years 1942 to 1951 there was a slight increase, the average annual utilization for that period being 2 [DOT] 935 billion cubic feet. The utilization for the year 1952 alone was 3-545 billion cubic feet.
It will be noticed here that in the year 1952 there was a very definite increase. In talking about depletion we must not only, of course, refer to utilization. It is also necessary to refer to wastage. In the years I have mentioned wastage due to fire, insects and disease amounted to an annual average, for the ten years 1941 to 1950, of 732 million cubic feet, for the ten years 1942 to 1951 an average of 675 million cubic feet, and for the year 1952, 790 million cubic feet. If these figures are related to the total product which the forest is able to supply we find that over the ten years 1942 to 1951, the annual depletion was at the rate of 1 * 3 per cent of the accessible area or 0-9 per cent of the productive area or 2-9 per cent of the occupied area. For the year 1952 the depletion for the total productive area was 1 [DOT] 1 per cent, for the occupied area 3 [DOT] 5 per cent and for the accessible area 1 [DOT] 6 per cent.
If we take these figures and analyse them some very interesting facts can be found. First, we note that the rate of depletion is increasing. Second, we note that the annual rate of depletion in the occupied area wa*

Conservation
3-5 per cent for the year 1952. No forest could ever hope to maintain a sustained annual yield with a 3-5 per cent depletion in any one year or over a period of years. But we must remember that this 3 * 5 per cent refers only to the occupied area, and the occupied area is of course considerably less than the total forested area of Canada. The total occupied area is actually 38 per cent of the productive area. If this is written in terms of the productive area, 1 [DOT] 1 per cent, we can easily see that with a rotation program of 70 years a depletion of 1-1 per cent can- easily be maintained. While it may be true that in the accessible and occupied areas the percentage of depletion has been rather high, I suggest that when we talk about the rate of depletion it should be referred to the total productive area.
But another lesson comes from this, Mr. Speaker. It means that in the areas that are being logged today excessive cutting in all probability is taking place. But if the rate is referred to the whole area then the rate of cutting is not excessive, which points out the need for a very strong forest management program in Canada so that rather than cutting timber stands that are not old enough to be cut, there will be direction toward the cutting of timber in those stands that are mature and overstocked.
I believe these figures indicate the directions in which conservation measures are most likely to be successful, and I would suggest that there are five. First of all, there should be a program of sound forest management. Second, there should be direction toward the cutting of timber on mature stands that are overstocked. Third, there should be good cutting practice with controlled reforestation, seeding and planting programs not only to renew the forests that have been cut but also to augment them, for I believe that in any forest area that has been cut it is not only possible to produce a forest equally as good as the one that was cut, but that under proper management it is possible to produce a forest that is better. In other words, we not only have renewal but we also have augmentation. Fourth, we need an effective fire prevention program. Of course many of our provinces today do have fire prevention programs that are effective. Fifth, we need adequate scientific research to discover and control attacks by insect and disease.
If these five points are to be the points of a conservation program, let us look for a moment and see how these five points are being carried out by provincial governments, assisted by the federal government and assisted by private enterprise. In 1949 this

parliament passed the Canada Forestry Act. Two years later, in May, 1951, there was a federal-provincial conference with reference to conservation. Following the passing of the Canada Forestry Act there was an agreement with some of the provinces whereby the federal government agreed to pay one-half the cost of forest inventories. They agreed to pay $10 per thousand for planted trees, $1 per acre for seeding and one-fifth of the cost of operation of tree nurseries.
Up to March 31, 1954, under this program ground surveys had been done on 200,000 square miles of Canada's forest lands, air surveys had been done on 500,000 square miles, and inventory reports had been received on over 400,000 square miles. Up to March 31, 1955, planting had exceeded 50 million trees over an estimated area of 60,000 acres, and seeding had been done over 6,000 acres. It is estimated that by the end of March, 1956, nearly $5 million will have been spent by the federal government on this program initiated under the Canada Forestry Act of 1949.
Added to this we have the research facilities of the federal government. We have the prevention measures by provincial governments and also by private enterprise. I believe that by provincial governments and by private enterprise a very excellent job is being done in this respect. We also have expenditures by the lumbering industry and expenditure on research and control by the Canadian pulp and paper association which exceeds the expenditure of all provincial governments combined.
I believe that a fairly good program of conservation is now in effect. It remains to be seen how effective it will be over the next few years and how well the program as outlined can be implemented. But I believe we can go forward with the hope that Canada's forests will continue to produce sufficient wood for our lumbering industry and for the pulp and paper industry. Mr. Gordon Godwin, woodlands manager for the Ontario division of the Ontario Paper Company Limited, last year said this, as found on page 2 of his printed speech, when speaking to the Rotary club of Woodstock, Ontario:
Thus with all inventory withdrawals accounted for, and in consideration of growth rates, it is clear that we are in no danger of exhausting our forests.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in the annual report of the president of the Canadian pulp and paper association for the year 1955, at page 8 the president states:
The pulpwood harvested last year for the industry increased by about 10 per cent and exceeded 13 million cords. About one-third of this wood was purchased and two-thirds came from company

limits. The limit cut. represented a harvest of less than 8 cubic feet per acre averaged over all the woodlands of the industry. These woodlands can most certainly support such a cut in perpetuity and, under present management methods, can support an increasing cut in the years to come.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to forestry resources conservation measures within my own province of Newfoundland. I do not believe there is any province across the whole country of Canada that is more conservation conscious than is Newfoundland. I believe we may have the earliest conservation measures in existence across this land, going back into the early history of Newfoundland, to the year 1610 when a Bristol merchant by the name of John Guy came to Newfoundland and established a settlement at Cupids. There in 1610 he made this ruling: "No person shall set fire in the woods". It may be that this regulation made early in 1610 was the first conservation measure on the North American continent.
I might add that it was at this time, under the administration of John Guy, that the first forest survey in Newfoundland was made. I agree, of course, that it applied only to that area of Newfoundland over which John Guy had the authority of administration. But 150 years later Sir Hugh Palliser, a governor of Newfoundland, speaking of Labrador, said that any person setting fire in the woods should be brought to St. John's, the capital of the province, and there tried before him. That was in the year 1767.
From that time onward not a great deal was done with the forestry resources in Newfoundland, but in 1919 a branch of the department of agriculture and mines was set up for the purpose of looking after our forest resources. In 1953 a new policy for forest management was brought into effect. At the present time the total forest lands of Newfoundland-and I am referring only to the island-are divided into 250 operational zones. In some of these zones studies have been carried out with relation to cutting rules and allowable cuts. In those management zones more concentrated studies have been carried out with the idea of getting facts and figures relating to the amount of wood which could be cut, the allowable cut and plans for a more effective management program. Of course the earlier settlers who came to Newfoundland came there to fish, but they were not there very long before they were able to see clearly the relation between the fishing and the forest industries.
There was a gradual development of the lumbering industry. For example, some of the old water wheels are still there. But it was not until 1890 that Newfoundland entered the export lumber business. It was
Conservation
not until 1897 that the first pulp mill was established in Newfoundland. This pulp mill operated, I believe, for a period of five years. Then in 1909 the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company started that great mill at Grand Falls. In 1925 the Newfoundland Power and Paper Company began the great newsprint mill on the Humber river. This mill was later transferred to the International Power and Paper Company in 1926 and, in 1938, to the great Bowater organization.
The importance of forest industries to the economy of Newfoundland may well be shown by this statement, and I am reading from the estimated income of Newfoundland for the year 1955. The estimated income from all forest industries is rated at $64 million, or 31-6 per cent of the total income. The income next to that of forest industries was that of mining but it was much less, being only 12-3 per cent. The fishing industry was far less, bringing in only $20 million or 9-8 per cent of the total annual income.
In 1954 the provincial government of Newfoundland authorized a royal commission to be established to look into the problems of conservation in Newfoundland, along with, of course, many other forestry problems. I have here a copy of this report. As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, the essence of this report is the same as what I have given for the forests of Canada as a whole, namely that in some areas there is considerable overcutting but that for the forests in general there is plenty of forest land to allow the present industries to carry on for some considerable time.
This does not, however, take into account the forest resources in Labrador. No complete forest inventory has been made of the forest resources of Newfoundland Labrador; but from what aerial surveys have been made, as well as from ground surveys, it is estimated that the major part of the forest resources of Newfoundland Labrador are concentrated at three points. These are in the lake Melville area, having a total production of 30 million cords; in the Sandwich bay area, having a total production of 11 million cords, and on the southeast coast of Labrador, having a total production of 8 million cords. These figures give a total of 49 million cords, an amount which would look after the industries of Newfoundland for some time, since they have an annual rate of depletion of a little less than 1 million cords per year.
Having due regard to these facts, the fact that there was a federal-provincial conference in 1951, the fact that in 1954 a convention was held by the Canadian forestry association, and the fact there is some indication that the forestry association will continue with its convention in 1956, I believe

Conservation
that no federal-provincial conference is necessary at this time. To the hon. member for Kootenay West I should like to say that this is a problem which needs to be watched continually if we wish to be sure that our forestry resources are not going to be depleted beyond recognized limits.
I believe that the real conservation is the conservation which is put into effect when there is no danger of having our resources depleted. I should like to commend the hon. member for Kootenay West for having brought forward this resolution, and I hope it will be brought forward again. I believe that the conservation of our natural resources is a problem that needs to be tackled at various times in this house. After all, Mr. Speaker, our natural resources do not belong to us. We are not the owners; we are only the temporary tenants. I should hope that here, in this great land of Canada, some conservation program can be carried on so that we may hand over to posterity those natural resources, improved if possible but never impaired.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who just spoke for his excellent contribution to this discussion this afternoon. At the same time I should like to express a word of appreciation to the hon. member for Kootenay West who through his resolution has afforded us this opportunity. Obviously the subject of conservation is of tremendous interest in this house. Every year when it comes under discussion we have a wide, representative debate.
This all to the good because, as many hon. members have already indicated, the topic of conservation is of tremendous importance to Canada. We are passing into a phase of development where everyone is seriously concerned and preoccupied with the necessity of conserving our rich resources. From the standpoint of members from the prairie regions, it might appear that we are in possession of limitless land resources that could never be exhausted under any circumstances. However, already there are ominous statistics available which indicated that the time is long overdue when some positive action must be taken if we are to continue the degree of fertility we have in that section of the country.
Actually, the relationship of arable land to the total area of each of the prairie provinces is very small indeed. The Rand McNally standard world atlas, 1953 edition, indicates that in Manitoba only 6 per cent of the total land area is arable. In Saskatchewan we have 21 per cent and in Alberta 13 per cent.

There are further statistics which indicate that during the period of the thirties, in particular, and up until 1941, we abandoned some 4 million farm acres in western Canada. Between 1921 and 1940 some 267,938 acres of land in Manitoba went out of cultivation, largely due to soil erosion. Those figures serve to indicate, I feel, that this is a matter that requires urgent attention.
The point I should like to stress is the need for a nation-wide policy to cope with the problem. I shall follow the example of the hon. member for Kootenay West in using the word "nation-wide" rather than national. Without exception from all sides of the house, every time this topic is discussed, we have the unanimous opinion that conservation is important. However, when we get down to the fine point we always run afoul of the problem of federal and provincial responsibility. Last year as I recall we had an excellent discussion, but in the final analysis I think it was the Minister of Agriculture who justified continued inactivity by indicating that it would be necessary for the provincial governments to take the initiative in this matter.
There are examples where the contrary has been true. Indeed, the only real occasion when a comprehensive attempt was made to deal with the problem was in 1935, when the Conservative government of that day inaugurated the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. This was initiated by the federal government. The P.F.R.A. conservation work was placed under the jurisdiction of the federal department of agriculture. It incorporated the services of all agricultural research across the country. Soil surveys were expanded, and research was instigated at appropriate universities by plant breeders, soil scientists, agricultural engineers and agricultural economists. The extension services of the provincial departments of agriculture were helpful in taking the information arising from the various activities under P.F.R.A. to the individual farmers. The act provided for an advisory committee with representation from the provinces as well as from the federal government.
We have a precedent, therefore, for nationwide activity, at least in one important aspect of this problem. The argument that usually winds up this debate, to the effect that in order to get action we must have provincial government initiative, does not necessarily apply in view of the precedent I have just mentioned.
I am mainly interested in this problem because of the continued difficulty that we have

with flooding in Manitoba. There is a concrete example of national co-operation on this particular problem as well. Last fall a very important flood control project was commenced in my constituency on Pipestone creek. It is perhaps a relatively small development, but it does involve the expenditure of some $200,000. This Pipestone project is being jointly financed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Through P.F.R.A. the federal government will pay about half the cost. The provincial government will pay about one-third, and the remainder of the cost will be split between the municipalities of Pipestone and Sifton. There is also another federal department participating in this particular project. There is an Indian reserve in the area, so the federal Indian affairs department is participating in the scheme. I mention this example merely to demonstrate that it is possible to get joint action on these important measures.
If I am given two minutes, Mr. Speaker,
I think I can bring my remarks to a conclusion. I mention this subject of flooding particularly, and in doing so I do not exclude the general problem outlined in the resolution in connection with soil, forest and water conservation. I believe that flooding is directly connected to the problems that arise in regard to soil and forest preservation. I think it can be easily demonstrated that flooding, which we sometimes refer to as an act of God, can be more properly described as an act of man. I am thinking particularly of those murderous flash floods that have done such extensive damage in the various provinces during recent years. The flash flood on the Humber river, for example, could easily have arisen from the fact that forest reserves in Ontario have been allowed to diminish to a point where they are a small percentage of the total land area.
According to Mr. Bodsworth, who writes in Maclean's magazine, we have not only stripped the trees from the agricultural land but we have deforested 8,000 square miles of land so infertile that only trees will grow on it. He says:
Germany, though fighting for living space in two wars, has 27 per cent of its land in forests. Canada, at the rate it is now reforesting its overcleared agricultural areas, will not have an adequate forest cover until 2750-if runaway water has not carried all of our topsoil into the oceans long before that time.
He goes on to refer to the tremendous loss of topsoil that occurred during the Humber river flood, when University of Toronto scientists measured the silt content of one of the three branches of that river and found it was carrying 2,700 tons of soil per hour into lake Ontario. Now, I do not believe I have to
Conservation
stress further at this point, mainly because of lack of time, that we have an urgent problem on our hands which can only be successfully coped with if the terms of the resolution are carried out, and nation-wide consideration given to this matter at the earliest possible moment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation):
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the resolution now before the house is a champion of conservation, as are all other hon. members of the house.
The conservation of our natural resources is one of the most important matters that can be debated here and I believe I am not mistaken in stating that we all agree on that point. Moreover, being conscious of our responsibilities, we all know that it is our privilege and duty as Canadian citizens to promote at all times the cause of conservation of our natural resources, in all its forms.
That is the principle which leads me to speak in the debate and I hope that my humble contribution will justify the valuable time that I must necessarily take to express my views on this subject.
Each time conservation has been mentioned in the house, whether on the occasion of government legislation-and there have been several instances in the past few years-or whether the matter has come up as a result of a motion from a private member, such as this one, the problem has always given rise to interesting and most fruitful debates.
The conservation of our natural resources interests all those who have the welfare of society and the future of the nation at heart. We all speak feelingly in the matter. It has long been the subject of debate in provincial legislatures. It has also been the main topic of several conferences and meetings across the country, and all classes of citizens have made their views known on the matter. All of us want to discharge our responsibility towards future generations, and make sure that our natural resources will not be depleted but preserved for use by our successors. We also wish that their development may increase In proportion to the population.

Conservation
Unfortunately, the natural resources of our country have not always been dealt with according to the principles of true conservation, nor have they received all the attention they deserved. In the past, we have been far too wasteful of our resources. In the early days of the colony, for instance, the abundance of trees was, for the settler, an obstacle to colonization. For the first settlers in this country, the forest was almost an enemy which had to be defeated to make land available for cultivation. It has been pushed back with the axe and even with fire; vast spaces of land which should never have been cleared were thus turned into unproductive deserts. In the years which followed the period of settlement, unscrupulous operators, joining efforts with the settlers, did not show any better judgment in their treatment of the forest. Our forest resources have not been dealt with properly.
Again today we do not always show our forests all the respect they deserve. Today, one cannot understand that the forest should still fall prey to human greed.
There are still too many people bent upon drawing from the forest the greatest immediate profits possible without regard for [DOT]consequences. We must put an end to these unforgivable abuses. It is the duty of provincial governments to show more severity and to bring to reason those unscrupulous operators.
Yet it is because of its forests that Canada is foremost among paper producers of the world. The forest is the great regulator of the streams which water our lands and supply our power plants. It protects against erosion and safeguards our wild life. Canadian forests, and the industries they supply, play a vital part in our national economy. Each year, they bring wealth to our country and contribute to the economic stability of the whole nation. At present, hundreds of thousands of people earn their living in those industries.
We are prone to consider that the forest is an inexhaustible source of wealth. It should not be forgotten however, that at this time our forest industries are running at full capacity and that there is very real danger that this system of high speed cutting may disrupt the balance of nature and that the forest may not have sufficient time to renew itself.
Our Canadian forest must not be allowed to die. Should this ever come about the whole national economy would suffer a grievous blow. Governments, industry and the public
.
generally must therefore take the necessary steps so that the forest may remain productive and protected against its enemies: man, fire, tree diseases and insects.
It has often been demonstrated that in the past governments have been lacking in vision and that industry, and the public in general, have been guilty of unforgivable abuses in the exploitation of our forests, with the result that over vast stretches of land the forest has become unable to ensure its own regrowth without human intervention and recourse to expensive artificial means.
Fortunately, over the past thirty years, the necessity of conservation has been better understood. At the present time, for instance, lumber companies are more alert. They take a greater interest in the future of our forestry resources and are active in the fields of forest management and silviculture. Reforestation has ensured sustained yields to some of our largest operators. Each year the industry spends considerable sums of money in the opening of access roads, fire prevention, research of all kinds and surveys of improved methods of operation. These are essential contributions on the part of industry. They must be continued and governments should make it their responsibility to encourage them as much as possible.
I should add at this point that the provinces, which are primarily responsible for the administration and conservation of our forests, of which they are the owners, are increasingly conscious of their duty as regards forest management and conservation. Nevertheless since they are the real owners of the greater part of the forest area under their control, we have a right to expect that they continue to encourage conservation in all its various forms and in every possible field.
I should very much like to remind the house once more, Mr. Speaker, of the magnificent work accomplished in the field of conservation by the Canadian Forestry Association, 1'Association Forestiere Quebecoise and all the various groups affiliated to the latter organization, such as the Quebec 4-H clubs and the regional forestry groups of which there are eight in all.
Over the past fifteen years these various associations have unceasingly alerted public opinion about the necessity of protecting and conserving our natural resources. If the interest of the Canadian public in forestry has been constantly increasing over the last few years, this is due to the activities of these various groups.

The Quebec Forestry Association was set up in 1939 by a group of public-spirited citizens who were determined to promote by all possible means the education of the public regarding the protection and the conservation of our natural resources, and more particularly our forests. For more than 15 years it has kept these vital problems before public opinion.
The Quebec Forestry Association does its educational work among French-speaking people in Canada, and its activities extend from one end of the country to the other. It is held in high repute not only in this country but in the United States and in other foreign countries. It is recognized as the best qualified organization to inform the public on the forest situation and it is regarded as the best medium for voicing public opinion on matters of conservation.
The aims of the association are to make French-speaking people in Canada conservation minded in order that the state may legislate more easily and more efficiently in that field. Its aims include also forest fire prevention, insect and disease control, and it conducts educational campaigns in favour of forest management, forestry and sound lumbering.
The association and its branches have a membership of more than 30,000, and their annual budget exceeds $175,000. The results recorded up to now are more than satisfactory, and we can be proud of the work done by these different organizations.
Public opinion has been aroused. The press, the radio, our public men and our clergy as well as associations, clubs and big business, all talk now of forest conservation as of something possible and necessary; it is even part of their activities. And, more important still; through the publicity thus carried out by the association, the public is beginning to realize the importance and necessity of such legislation passed by governments to regulate the utilization of natural resources such as the forests, fauna, rivers and land.
If I spoke at such length of the various activities of our forestry associations, it is because, to my mind, they deserve to be brought to the fore. With a very restricted budget, they do splendid work which must not pass unnoticed.
I should like at this point to appeal once again to the government and, to this effect, I urge upon the Minister of Northern Affairs
Conservation
and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) to recommend a more substantial assistance to the Canadian Forestry Association and to 1'Association Forestiere Quebecoise. This year, the estimates include an amount of $10,000 for that purpose and I should ask him to consider seriously the advisability of increasing that amount to $40,000 or $50,000. That would be one of the best investments the federal government could make for the cause of conservation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what should the federal government's attitude be as regards conservation of our national resources. If we consider the country as a whole and if we admit that forestry, agriculture, mining and manufacturing are the four mainstays of our economic, financial and industrial organization, we soon realize how important it is to strive for the conservation of our soil, our forests, our water resources and our mineral resources. We must consider this problem as being national, indeed international, in scope.
This government and its predecessors did not fail, in the course of the last twenty-five or thirty years, to take the necessary steps to co-operate with industry, with provincial governments and with our neighbours to the south, in order to intensify the conservation of the natural resources of our continent. And so we find on the statute books of Canada such laws as the Canada Forestry Act, the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, the Eastern Rocky Mountains Forest Conservation Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, to mention but these few. Each of these acts was passed for the benefit of any province wishing to avail itself of its provisions.
It might be good at this point to ask ourselves whether all provincial governments take advantage of these acts as they should, whether there is reticence or negligence on the part of some provincial governments when it is merely a matter of availing themselves of the assistance offered to them by the federal government. I wonder what practical results we could expect from a federal-provincial conference on conservation.
And there are many other fields where the federal government is doing a good job in matters of soil conservation, forestry and water resources. May I mention first the forestry research branch, which has made

conservation
and is still making advanced studies in tree culture, cutting, protection, timber reserves, reforestation, utilization, preservation, technology and chemistry.
In a general way, the federal government administers an extensive policy of conservation in the fields under its jurisdiction. Part of this program is related to studies and research works of all kinds in matters of agriculture, forestry and water resources.
On reading the last report of the forestry division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, I found encouragement in the fact that seven provinces took advantage of the Canada Forestry Act and that, in a not too distant future, they will have completed the inventory of their forestry resources. It is also very encouraging to find that more than 48 million trees have been planted in six provinces according to the regulations passed under the same legislation.
It is most interesting to read in the same report that the federal government has made available to the province of New Brunswick an amount of $3 million for extermination of the spruce bud worm. This large scale experiment has already enabled the treatment of several thousand square miles, and apparently the work will continue next year as a substantial enough item appears in the 1955-56 estimates.
I could quote several other excerpts from the report I just mentioned, on hydraulics, for instance, hydrometry, forestry economy, the forestry research service, the forestry inventory section and the forestry product laboratory service. Each of these items, vying in interest with the others, shows how much federal legislation is promoting better use and greater conservation of our natural resources.
At this point I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in congratulating the officers and technicians in charge of the federal forestry service. They are doing a good job and we can consider ourselves lucky to have employees of that calibre to direct the activities of this important department.
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted that the federal government is giving valuable assistance to the provincial governments in the field of conservation. If the provinces are really willing to take every possible advantage of this assistance, there is reason to hope that we will obtain the desired results.

In spite of the progress achieved in this field, much remains to be done. It is not an easy problem, as I have already said, to go to the limit of our resources in matters of conservation. As a rule, such problems are solved through compromise and co-operation.
Here let me emphasize that the ultimate purpose of the resolution of the hon. member for Kootenay West is to establish a nationwide uniform policy on soil, forestry, water conservation and land use.
To achieve this, the hon. member suggests the calling of a federal-provincial conference.
It seems, at first, that there should be no objection to the establishment of a national conservation policy; on the contrary, it would seem to us an absolute necessity. On the other hand, in a case like this, might not certain people consider the expressions "national policy" or "national projects" as an infringement on provincial rights? Might not such words incite certain provinces to state that the central government wants to deprive them of some of their vested power? I am putting this question because past experience has shown that it was not always wise to initiate national policies in matters that were constitutionally under provincial jurisdiction.
As I said before in this house, I feel that one of the most important tasks faced by the various governments, by industry and the people in general would consist in defining responsibilities and lacks, so as to determine the logical means to solve any existing difficulty. The problem remains the same, and brings to the minds of some Canadians questions of great import that are still waiting for a clear answer.
How serious is our forest problem? What should we do in order to conserve this national asset? What ideal aim should industry and the various governments pursue? If there were any danger to lose this very important asset, what should be done to avoid such a disaster? How can we maintain each small lot of our woodlands in constant production?
I am repeating all those questions which I asked before in order to show that the problem with which we are concerned is not such that it could be solved during a federal-provincial conference. We have many reasons for not believing that such a conference would enable the country to establish a nation-wide conservation policy. The prob-

lem is too intricate and covers too large a field to leave any hope that it could be solved without preliminary study and without genuine co-operation on the part of all concerned.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) moved an amendment which, I think, most members of the house should welcome. However, I, for one, insist again on suggesting that a special committee should be established. I feel that we, as a legislature, could do a better job by requesting that a special committee of the house be established in order to carry on further studies and inquiries on that subject which we all have at heart. It is quite possible that a thorough report on the matter might indicate the best way of considering the forestry problem, and the problem of the conservation of our resources as well.
It is obvious that the federal government wants to do everything in its power, at the present time, to encourage conservation. Furthermore, the legislation passed so far, the facilities provided to industry and to the provincial governments', and the moneys which are being voted every year for that purpose are so much evidence that this government is well prepared to really help those who want to help themselves.
(Text) :


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on this very important subject this evening, I wish to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for his motion which was at the head of the list, because it gives us an early opportunity to discuss this very important matter.
I might say that personally I have been an active conservationist for some years, not to the extent of the hon. member for Kootenay West with his vast acreage but in a very small way in Wentworth county with a few acres, both in water conservation and reforestation. I might say that my plan for reforestation is not the growing of Christmas trees but rather a long-term project.
I wish to deal for a few moments this evening-and this is the subject matter of my few words-with the lake shore erosion and water levels bordering on and surrounding lake Ontario. I have sometimes felt that my voice and those of one or two other members were crying in the wilderness in this
Conservation
house, because oil and on for the past 20 years this has been one subject in which I have been very much interested. On April 20, 1951, I said in this house:
In the immediate vicinity of Hamilton beach and Van Wagner's beach just a few months ago they experienced a great deal of trouble, and many houses have been practically washed away. The common answer to that is:	Well, they should not
have built so near the shore line. In many instances the older houses that were built years ago were built a considerable distance from the shore line at that time, but because of this constant erosion, in some instances up to six and often nearly seven feet a year over the past 15 or 20 years, the shore line has receded upwards of 200 feet. A serious condition is facing the people in the Niagara peninsula.
I might say that those people living on the shore line of lake Ontario have been especially concerned for years and, because of the St. Lawrence seaway development, have been rather perturbed as to what might happen to the property when certain levels were established. I have before me a brief that was presented to the federal government early in January of this year by the lake Ontario property protection association. With the consent of the house I should like to put this on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Exton Lennard: The brief is as follows:
The Canadian
Lake Ontario Property Protection Association
Whereas Her Majesty's government has approved the recommendation of the international joint commission to control the water level of lake Ontario contrary to nature, we, the property owners ask for your consideration of the following statements:
Whereas the natural water levels of lake Ontario with the addition of diverted waters, and the removal of the Gut dam, has maintained fluctuating level below 245 feet minimum, and 247 feet maximum, and
Whereas Her Majesty's government approved the diversion of waters to assist the hydro commission, and has now sanctioned a fluctuating level of 244-248 feet:
We therefore request Her Majesty's government to give serious consideration to the property owners' problems.
At various times members of parliament, realizing the need, and the responsibility of the government for assistance, have brought this problem up for discussion and have been offered partial assistance; but owing to the inability of the municipalities to meet their quota due to insufficient funds, the offer was withdrawn.
We realize, too, that mistakes can be made in such a mammoth undertaking, and one that caused millions o( dollars worth of damage to property owners, and much loss of land, was the diverting of waters into lake Ontario-which is the lowest of the great lakes-without making provisions for increased outflow. This association pressed for the removal of the Gut dam, and arranged for a tour of inspection of the international joint commission,

Conservation
thus convincing the commission of the seriousness of the situation; and the removal brought immediate relief.
In view of the fact that the findings of the select committee, formed by the provincial government to study erosion was never tabled, and also that no cabinet minister has ever attended an international joint commission public meeting, we feel it to be very essential that a committee be formed comprising members of parliament-not engineers-to meet with members of this association and discuss the problems of the property owners, and consider the most economical ways of protecting their homes and income. Considering the enormous losses already sustained, they wish to be assured of a reasonably safe future.
We feel that had the international joint commission recommended the hydro commission to lower the channels two feet, the power potentials, and the natural levels of the lake would have been maintained, and erosion controlled without further protection.
We feel that this matter should be considered immediately, a committee formed, and action taken so that protective work may be completed in conjunction with the completion of the St. Lawrence power project.
I might say also in that connection that I have a letter from the Wentworth county council endorsing that brief. I wish to draw your attention especially to the second last paragraph of that brief, which states:
We feel that had the international joint commission recommended the hydro commission to lower the channels two feet, the power potentials, and the natural levels of the lake would have been maintained, and erosion controlled without further protection.
I must say that this brief was presented by an association that represents other smaller associations from the bay of Quinte around the lake to Niagara-on-the-Lake. In connection with the recent damage I wish to say that I have before me a list of 139 different properties along the shores of lake Ontario. I might say it refers to just that part of lake Ontario extending from Burlington to Niagara-on-the-Lake. The totals of that list are as follows:	Estimated damage,
$361,034.20; real estate depreciation, $415,095, and cost of protection by shoring, etc., $365,709.25. Just last year in one storm alone damage was done to the total amount of $12,180 to 24 dwellings at Crescent beach, Saltfleet township, near Hamilton.
It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that the federal authorities have no responsibility in the matter. I say they most certainly have because, so far as lake shore erosion is concerned, in the past many years federal governments have taken tons of sand from along the lake several miles from shore, making huge holes in the lake bottom. These holes were very quickly refilled by sand washed from the shores by the undertow, and that sand never returned to the lake shore.
These people on the shores on lake Ontario who have their property damaged are not

asking for any consideration for the damage that has been done, but they are concerned for the future and they want to be assured that they will have adequate protection with respect to damage that might occur through the operations of the deep sea waterway. On January 23, 1956, I wrote to General McNaughton, chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission, as follows:
Dear General McNaughton;
I would urge that in the forthcoming deliberations that there be suitable indemnification clauses inserted into the plan for the regulations of the water levels of lake Ontario. I urge this on behalf of the lake Ontario property protection association and more especially for those members and residents who live on that portion of the shores of lake Ontario lying between Hamilton and Niagara-on-the-Lake.
On the same date I received this letter from General McNaughton:
Dear Mr. Lennard:
I have your letter of today's date in which you urge on behalf of the lake Ontario property protection association and others that the plan for the regulation of the levels of lake Ontario should include suitable indemnification clauses. I am bringing your letter to the attention of my colleagues and careful consideration will be given to the matter.
Yours sincerely,
A. G. L. McNaughton.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, these people are very fair. They are not asking for compensation for past losses, but they are asking for protection against future damage. I feel that in this whole affair the property owners along the shores of lake Ontario have had to play second fiddle to the Ontario HydroElectric Power Commission, and that under the circumstances they should be assured of protection in the future. Protection clauses most certainly should be put into the agreement.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the resolution moved by my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West, I wish to co-operate, as have other members, by being as brief as possible because we know there are so many who would like to make their contribution to the debate. The resolution calls for a dominion-provincial conference to study the question of conservation with respect to soil, forest and water resources. In introducing the resolution the hon. member has set out most adequately and in excellent fashion what the objectives are and some of the means that might be pursued. Therefore I will not need to repeat what has been said in the general discussion of the question.
However, the province of Manitoba is particularly interested from the point of view of

water. So far this winter more than seven feet of snow have fallen in most parts of the province, and unless the spring break-up is exceptionally favourable there is no doubt at all that there will be widespread property losses as well as inestimable damage to soil and fields generally. Because we in Manitoba feel that in the past there has not been sufficient planning with respect to the conservation of water, which is the other aspect of the problem of flooding, we are particularly glad that this question has come before the house at this time.
So far the only type of work that has been done which could be classed as conservation, together with reclamation, has been that done under the authority of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and most people in Manitoba feel that while the act has been very useful in many respects it has been too restricted in its scope, not only from the point of view that it applies only to the three prairie provinces but also because it does not even apply to all of the three prairie provinces.
For example, in the province of Manitoba the work done under the act has been confined to a small area in the southwestern part of the province. There are large settled areas of good agricultural land where the problem of flood waters has been just as serious as in the area covered by the act, if not more so, and these areas have been entirely left out of the operation of the act. The figures show what the situation has been. Since the act came into force on April 1, 1935 until March 31 last year over $100 million has been spent. Of that amount only $6,824,000 was spent in the province of Manitoba. About $45 million was spent in Saskatchewan, the same amount in Alberta and $3,242,000 in British Columbia. Percentagewise it works out to 6-8 per cent in Manitoba, 45 per cent in Alberta, the same in Saskatchewan and 3-2 per cent in British Columbia.
I point that out not because we have any objection to a large amount of money being spent for conservation and reclamation in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are glad they have been able to receive benefits under the act, but certainly even a glance at the figures will indicate that we in the province of Manitoba have a real grievance in that only 6-8 per cent of the total has been spent in our province where the need, particularly for flood control, is as great as if not greater than in the other provinces. For that reason I welcome the proposal for a dominion-provincial conference on the question of conservation, particularly from the point of view of the question of water in the province of Manitoba.
Conservation
We are interested in the matter from two different angles, which stem from the same condition. We are interested in flood control for the very obvious reason that in the last three or four years many parts of the province, such as the interlake district represented by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), the constituency which I represent and many other areas have suffered very serious set-backs due to excess water, and also due to the fact that the run-off of water was not controlled.
We are also interested because while our province so far has been extremely fortunate in being able to utilize its water power, we are now reaching the stage where the easily accessible sources of water power are becoming exhausted. Unless we move much farther north into areas which are much more inaccessible and remote, a procedure which would bring with it much greater expenditure on transmission facilities and construction, it will not be long before the province of Manitoba will become extremely short of water power. If we can harness in the most useful fashion the water resources we have and can control the water run-off, it will serve a double purpose. It will provide a supply of water for our water power requirements and at the same time it will prevent some of the serious flood damage that has occurred in our province from time to time.
In order to bring about a general over-all plan for the control of these waters, it will be necessary to have federal and provincial co-operation. In the province of Manitoba I think there is a good case in point. As it happens, in the northwest part of Manitoba, the area with which I am most familiar, the difficulties we have had with flood water arise from two sources particularly. One of them happens to be Riding Mountain national park, which is the responsibility of the federal government. The other one, which is north of Riding Mountain national park, is the Duck Mountain reserve which is, of course, the responsibility of the province of Manitoba. The waters from the eastern and northern slopes of these two watersheds have caused a serious amount of damage over the years, and many efforts have been made by the municipalities, through the province, to obtain the co-operation of the federal government in working out an over-all plan to try to control the water from these watersheds in such a way that the problem will be solved.
The problem in the past has been this. While the federal government has been willing to assist and has contributed to a great number of projects, the assistance has been based or hypothecated upon the ability of the local municipality to contribute its

Conservation
share. They have offered to the province a series of agreements under which the rural municipality and the province share half the cost of construction of the project, and the federal government assumes the other half. But unless the local municipality can put up its share, then of course all the rest of the moneys which are contingent upon that share being forthcoming do not come through.
We have therefore been slowly coming to the realization that if we are going to solve our flooding problem in that part of the province-and I think this statement holds true for many other parts of my province- that job must be done. It will be a big scale job. It will require excellent engineering and large expenditures, but it will pay big dividends, when we stop to consider what is lost in the way of crops and soil erosion each spring when the waters go out of control, as has happened so many times in the last few years.
It has happened in the constituency which I represent. It has happened on the Portage plains, in the interlake country and in many other parts of Manitoba. The loss in topsoil, in crops and in property damage has been tremendous in my province.
While this is of course a long-term project and it may take a considerable length of time to work out a national policy of conservation, in the meantime I hope this government will be willing, in co-operation with the province of Manitoba, to take some immediate steps to help reduce the losses which we may be facing even this spring on account of the unusually heavy snowfall.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am nappy to take part in this debate which I consider very important to the future welfare of the electors of the county I have the honour to represent in this house, and of all Canadians as well.
It is not the first time I call the attention of this house on this question, but I think it is such an important matter that I never miss an opportunity to speak on the subject.
Since Providence has been good enough to endow our country with all kinds of resources, our duty is to develop, protect and improve these resources. Our deserving Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) having been good enough to give us such a brilliant and active Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), it is our
[Mr. Zaplitny.I
duty to support him and to acquaint him with our wishes.
For my part, I wish that the Nation river project, which was prepared several years ago, would be undertaken. I have a plan which is already drawn up, and I would be glad to submit a copy of that plan to the house, to the minister. I will read the different parts I would like to put on the official record.
(Text):
Chapter 1
Location and Boundaries
The watershed of the South Nation river is an area of 1,511 square miles lying between the cities of Ottawa and Hawkesbury on the river Ottawa and Brockville on the river St. Lawrence. In shape it may be likened to a flattened triangle with its apex near Gloucester station, six miles south of Ottawa and the long side, or base, running northeast from near Brockville to a point near Vankleek Hill, Southwest of Hawkesbury. On the southeast and for a short distance on the southwest the South Nation watershed is bounded by that of the St. Lawrence. On the north, it adjoins the watershed of the Ottawa and on the west the watershed of the Rideau, whose tributary, Kemptville creek rises within ten miles of the St. Lawrence, north of Brockville.
A watershed has been defined as the high ground separating two river systems. Taken in this literal sense it becomes only a boundary line but the term "watershed" is commonly used also to describe the area which is drained by a river and its tributaries. It is in this broader sense that the term is used in this report and, throughout the report, the terms watershed, drainage area, drainage basin and drainage unit are used interchangeably.
As there are no doubt many others who will want to speak on this important subject, I shall leave off further discussion of this important chapter 1. I will ask that this important subject be given consideration and that everything possible be done for the conservation of the soil and the power resources. I should like to have the minister, when he has the opportunity to do so, to look into the matter.
(Translation) :
As I said just now in English, the watershed of the southern branch of the Nation river covers an area of 1,511 square miles.
There are neither cities nor towns of any importance in this watershed, but a number of fine, prosperous villages that have been incorporated as municipalities, among them Winchester, Chesterville, Casselman, Finch and Maxville. There are also several villages that have not been incorporated as municipalities, of which Spencerville, South Mountain, Chrysler, Metcalfe, Moose Creek, Limoges, Russell and Bourget, are the most important.

We can therefore see that this watershed really comprises a rural area in Ontario.
I am speaking of digging, diking, etc., all urgent and necessary works, because they would improve the position of the twelve municipalities: Matilda, Mounta, Winchester, Edwardsburg, Augusta, Finch, Cambridge, Plantagenet South, Alfred, Plantagenet North, Chesterville and Casselman.
Floods in the southern watershed of the Nation river constitute a serious threat to the very existence of the people of all the rural municipalities in that district, and are detrimental to the economy of all the neighbouring commercial centres. It goes without saying that the periodical destruction of crops, roads, bridges and the washing away of thousands of tons of the best arable soil in one section of the province constitute a loss for the whole province. Those large losses are unfortunately not rare occurrences; on the contrary, they have been felt 30 times in the past 37 years, from 1918 to 1955 inclusive and in six cases they happened twice during the same year.
The floods of 1938 and 1955, which were the worst of all, indicate that this menace is getting worse and worse all the time.
The worst floods happen more particularly in two districts, the Brinston area, up the river from Chesterville which comprises the fertile lands of Winchester, Matilda and Mountain townships and the lake Cobb area, including the lowlands along the river from Lemieux to Plantagenet. In the Brinston district, the 1938 flood covered an area of 24 square miles; the water rose as high as nine feet and many houses had from two to three feet of water on the ground floor. The 1947 flood was quite as serious.
Floods caused by swelling rivers in the Spring cause much trouble, havoc and distress. Farmers are doing all they can to face the threat; they put livestock and equipment in attics or other safe shelters, and put off seeding until the water has withdrawn. At times, as many as nine days and a half have elapsed between the time the river overflowed its banks and Anally receded.
Those floods happen not only during the spring thaws but often in summer after heavy rains. As a matter of fact those rains cause the heaviest damage, for at such times full crops are washed away or rot under the water. Cases have been reported where the same farmer had his crops destroyed four years in a row.
I am glad that the minister concerned has agreed to accept a copy of the report, and I
Conservation
assure him that I am prepared at all times to supply him with any information regarding that project.
The cost of the project is not particularly high, being somewhat over two million dollars, to be shared by the province and the federal government. Since this work would be carried out in an agricultural district the municipalities concerned are in no position to meet any part of the cost. However, irrigation works are being carried out everywhere in Canada, the cost being met partly by the federal government, partly by the provincial governments. In the case of the project I just mentioned, the flooding of thousands of acres of fertile land could be prevented. Moreover we would be able to restock the Nation river with fish such as those our forebears caught and which they so enjoyed talking about. I will return to this later, and I shall refer to the three dams which existed in former days and which belonged to private individuals who had built sawmills and flour mills on them. Those mills later disappeared because of a lack of forest cover, of neglect and lack of funds.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if this project of mine were carried out, the river would stretch over 90 miles that could easily be stocked with various kinds of fish, to the delight of tourists and residents of the twelve municipalities I have mentioned. Moreover, this would also provide a supply of drinking water for all the herds on the numerous riverside farms, as about thirty small streams, such as the smaller and greater Castor rivers, the Horse creek and several others, flow into the Nation river. These rivers, which run through several villages, would provide a reservoir of a fairly high level that would insure adequate year round protection against fire.
You might be surprised to learn that, last summer my home town of Casselman voted $25,000 for the construction of a dam across the Nation river, to raise the level of the water in order to pump it back more readily into mains, to insure protection against fire.
That would enable us to have irrigation ditches in different parts and in many cases to double the crops of our farmers. It is not only in the west that irrigation would be a good thing. We too in the east, in the province of Ontario, would like to have irrigation just as much as the western provinces. However I do not want to impose upon the kindness of the house and have it listen to speeches on that subject for days and weeks. I realize that the government, which manages our country so well, will always be prepared to undertake projects

Conservation
which are to the benefit of all Canadians and will try to solve that problem when it has enough revenue to do so.
But I want to call the attention of the house on that point and say that in the east we maintain that the government should undertake an irrigation scheme in order to help our farmers who have to buy from the west most of the grain they need to feed their cattle. Yes, Mr. Speaker, our farmers and the people of our villages have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in order to get water.
I know farmers in my county who spent more than $2,000 to provide their cattle with an adequate supply of water. The same farmers buy grain from the west at market price, and very often pay $20 a ton for transportation only, in addition to storage fees. They sell their products at market price, as the western farmers do, but they do not come here and ask parliament to guarantee bank loans on their farm stored crops, nor to vote a $65 million bonus as the one we gave a few years ago to the western farmers. But they work just the same 365 days a year and they know that the province of Ontario contributes' 45 per cent of the federal budget. I trust that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will take my request into serious consideration.
There is also the Ottawa river which, on a distance of 40 miles approximately, borders on the northern part of the county of Russell, that is from Rockcliffe to Wendover. I shall limit my remarks to the part of that river which flows through the county of Russell. Cottage and motel owners are getting discouraged because they are losing customers owing to the pollution of the Ottawa river water by sewage and waste material from Ottawa and other cities, and from industries.
I believe the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should join the federal government in an attempt to solve the problem of purification and restocking of the Ottawa river. The fish have been destroyed by polluted water. This keeps away the tourists and means a loss to all cottage owners, as their properties decrease in value.
I would chide myself if I failed to mention the urgent need of accelerating reforestation work. May I be permitted to relate what Russell county has done in this field. We began retimbering 28 years ago in what we call the Larose stand. Now I know that the federal government is anxious to provide all the help needed without however encroaching upon provincial rights. Therefore the minis-

ter should try and get the Ontario government more interested. The Larose forest entails rather heavy expenses for the united counties of Prescott and Russell who buy land and pay wages to an officer, while the province is taking care of it as far as planting and maintenance are concerned.
I am pleased to congratulate all the personnel working on that project. They are wonderful workers and our agronomist is an efficient and intelligent man. They are doing a very good job. I give credit to the provincial government in this respect. This forest is a provincial property, so that the counties have to pay for the lands, and municipalities are losing tax revenue.
However, we are satisfied to carry on, because it will profit the future generation. At present, the Larose forest has an area of 23,500 acres, planted with 12 million trees. We mean to increase it to 25 million trees, that is why I am urging federal government assistance.
I have been interested in reforestation for the past 40 years. I started to plant trees on my farms in 1931, and I have had over 250,000 trees planted. What discourages people who want to do the same thing is the fact that at present the Ontario government is selling trees for $10 to $14 per thousand. In addition, one must pay municipal taxes and fire insurance. If the provincial government refuses to supply trees free of charge, could not the federal government pay for them? I would also ask that taxes be payable only when the trees are cut, and that the services of provincial government experts be provided to tell us which trees should be planted. I would also ask that fire insurance premiums be reasonably priced so that farmers may be encouraged to retimber all those stretches of land unsuited to agriculture. And we have a great many left. There are a great many of these stretches in Russell. It would be far better if they were covered with trees. In this way we would be providing wealth for future generations.
While travelling through Europe, a few years ago, I made it a point to inquire about methods of reforestation in the various countries I visited. The method I have just described was explained to me. I should add that when a tree is to be cut an expert from the central government designates the particular tree to be felled, and at the same time orders its immediate replacement by a small tree or trees suited to the ground. Then, and then only does the owner pay taxes and fire insurance premiums.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that afforestation is essential to the economy

of Canada and that the sooner we set ourselves to this task the better it will be for all Canadians. I am pleased to tell the house -in fact, both the opposition side and the government side of the house share this opinion-that the prime minister's choice was perfect when he picked so active and so qualified a man as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to direct the work of that department. All Canada will benefit from his great capacity.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to hasten the carrying out of this project. I therefore hope that the provinces will better understand their duty in that respect and that, in the near future, afforestation will be practised on a larger scale. This will also bring about an increase of animal life and attract greater numbers of American tourists who live close to our border.
(Text):


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West calls for the establishment of a nation-wide policy on soil, forest and water conservation and land use for Canada. I feel that most of us thoroughly agree in principle at least with the hon. member's resolution.
Therefore let us first make an observation on soil. I think many of us have oftentimes picked up a lump of soil in our hands, and we who are farmers have sifted that soil through our fingers and felt its body, its texture and its availability to absorb water. Yes, a farmer will sniff at it and almost taste it.
No treasure on earth is as valuable as a simple lump of soil. It is the very core of life from which all organisms emerge and it is the basis of the prosperity of all nations. A lump of soil absorbs water and solar energy and harbours a swarm of living things. A tiny seed finds in it the heat and moisture necessary to germinate. Here too is a storehouse of food from which tiny rootlets derive nourishment that is passed along to stems, leaves and fruit; all this from a single lump of soil. However, the soil can only give forth what it possesses. If rich in nutritive elements it can produce an abundance of food for man or beast. Lacking such reserves it can only grow weak plants and poor crops.
Originally nature had provided in the arable lands the nutriment required to grow a good crop, but man through lack of foresight to conserve depleted nature's storehouse, slowly in some parts of the world, in others very rapidly. Where soils have been depleted in organic material through mismanagement
Conservation
or other contributing conditions, science has intervened. It has provided improved methods of tillage. With chemical fertilizers it adds to the soil required quantities of the food it lacks. It has even developed custom-made seeds, brimfull of strength and vitality which enclose all the desirable characteristics of species, variety, productivity, early maturing, rapidity of growth and resistance to disease.
How important is a tree? The answer to this question is wide and varied. I would just like to quote an article that was written at the beginning of the 18th century, as follows:
The state is like a tree, the roots are agriculture, the trunk is the population, the branches are industry, the leaves are commerce and the arts; it is from the roots that the tree draws the nourishing sap . . . and it is to the roots that a remedy must be applied if the tree is not to perish.
In conservation in Canada the federal government should be giving direction and leadership to the production and growing of that tree so it will be worthy of being conserved. The roots of the tree are our provincial governments, which over the years have spent many thousands of dollars promoting conservation at the provincial level. The trunk and branches could be the population and industry, who stand to benefit from a sound tree with firm roots.
Governments in the past and present show great interest in our natural resources, but are they too late? They become concerned not in the relatively simple matter of protecting, developing and using the resources, but with the costly and almost hopeless task of restoring, rebuilding or trying to recreate or re-establish something that was in perfect condition before they became interested.
Conservation of our resources, including our soil, forests and water, should be a challenge for our governments at all levels. It should be a challenge to every individual in this great country of ours. I believe it is time for all of us to accept this challenge to prevent the waste of those things that represent our very lifeblood.
At the time of the birth of Christ it has been estimated that there were presumably about 300 million people on earth. Since then the population has doubled on three successive occasions. It took 1,650 years for the first doubling; 200 years for the second doubling, and only 100 years for the most recent. By the end of this century, barring unforeseen casualties, the world population will have again doubled. Should the population reach the 5 billion mark by the end of the century there will then be only an average of half an acre of ground per person. If

Conservation
these facts were really understood there would be no need for us to talk about and urge the necessity for conservation; we would be hard at it.
The virgin forest lands of this continent have been sadly depleted. In many areas we lose to fire, insects, disease and harvesting an amount in excess of the total annual growth. Forest management to maintain a sustained yield is still an objective to be achieved. In Canada an average of 5,000 fires a year rage across our forest lands burning in their path enough timber to build 85,000 five-room houses.
Forest fire protection in the Scandinavian country of Sweden is so complete that it is cheaper to insure a woodland property than it is to insure an industrial concern. To us living in Canada, where no insurance company would give consideration to covering growing timber, this fact is little short of incredible.
The demand for our forest products is terrific. For example, a single Sunday edition of the New York Times uses the product of from 80 to 100 acres of forest. I think we should also remember that it takes 60 to 80 years to grow a black spruce to a size ready for economical pulpwood harvesting.
I should like to conclude by quoting an poem entitled "Dust Bowl" which appeared in Nature Magazine of December, 1954. I hope that we in Canada will never reach the condition described here. This reads:
Men now exhume dead roads from tragic dust, That devastation's dry wind-blowings spanned, Where nature's grim revenge rides every gust,
For man's abuse of its long-tortured land.
Too late, bulldozers seek to rectify
The checks and balances where man has erred,
Too late, steam shovels fret dust-heavy sky,
For nature-it seems-has the final word.
Now man must face destruction, he designed, While lord-of-all-creation's worthy foe,
Will blow soil-desiccation through his mind, Exacting punishment with every blow.
A noble servant-nature-but beware,
Contempt will draw a monster from its lair.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering all this evening whether I was going to get on. Possibly that may have been the result of something affecting Mr. Speaker. Possibly I should call in an eye specialist. Since the last speaker was not an hon. member on this side of the house I thought possibly I might follow. Perhaps I should blame my mother for this, because apparently she did not make me quite big enough or tall enough.
First I should like to congratulate the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate upon their sincere presentations in the cause of conservation. It is evident that more and more people are today conscious of the need [Mr. McBain.l
for conserving our natural resources. The majority of hon. members who have taken part in this debate have dealt with conservation as it affects their ridings, with the exception of one, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais). He, in my opinion, is a national conservationist. He included everything in his amendment with one exception, the wildlife resources, which to me and the people in my country are very important. If I wished to amend the amendment I would include wildlife, but I do not think I shall move any subamendment at this time.
The question of conservation is tied up with the privilege of living in Canada. Durward Allen said in his book "Our Wild Life Legacy":
The rich resources of this land have given us our national standing and character, but we have reached a point where an end to much of this common property is in sight. The question is whether we will use it wisely and in perpetuity or use it up and be done with it. It is clear that natural advantage lies in one course although as individuals we might profit by the other.
Other speakers in this debate have covered the many and varied subjects of conservation, such as forestry, mining, soil erosion, agriculture, water, etc. I should like to deal with some aspects of the subject in regard to forests and wildlife, two of our renewable resources.
We are aware that during the early years in both the United States and Canada our forests were greatly depleted and our wildlife was killed off with no regard for future generations. In recent years it has become evident that if we are to continue to supply the demand for our forest products, a more efficient utilization of our forests is necessary. The federal government has been aware of the need for co-operation with the provinces in this field, and as a result the forestry act of 1949 was passed. This act provides for assistance to the provinces in the fields of forest inventories, reforestation, infestation of forests, etc. In this year's estimates you will find that $900,000 is being contributed for forest inventories. An additional $225,000 is being contributed for reforestation. There is also an amount of $650,000, which represents the federal contribution to combat spruce budworm in the province of New Brunswick.
Under the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources a great deal has been done in the field of forest research. It has also carried on research in forest products in the Vancouver and Ottawa laboratories. The maintenance of the operations of this important branch of government will cost $2J million this year. These figures, along with the contributions I have mentioned, total in

the neighbourhood of $4| million. It is quite obvious, therefore, that this government is aware of the need for forest conservation and is playing its part. I might add that responsibilities in the field of conservation should not be borne only by governments alone but also by the lumber industry and those individuals who derive pleasure and recreation from the great forests of Canada.
I should like to deal briefly with the subject of forest conservation as it affects the Northwest Territories. For a number of years the Slave river has produced spruce lumber for our building requirements and the logging and timber requirements of our mining industry, but it has reached the point where in two years the supply along this river will have been exhausted. The natural resources of the Northwest Territories are a federal responsibility, and I would respectfully suggest to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that an immediate survey be carried out by the forestry branch of his department to ascertain whether natural reforestation in that area is possible and if not, what methods of reforestation would be necessary to assure the ever-increasing mining industry and the communities of the north of a continued supply of these forest products.
I should also like to point out to the minister the need for a sound forest management policy in view of the new lumber industry which has been set up in the Wood Buffalo park.
Now I should like to make a few brief remarks in regard to the conservation of wildlife. We have only to look back not too many years when hundreds of thousands of buffalo roamed the western plains. In the matter of a few short years after the building of the railroads to the west, the buffalo were on the verge of extinction. A lessening in the numbers of these animals was bound to come because the people of that era gave no heed to conservation, and their disappearance was sudden. Many hardships were encountered by the people living in the west at that time. Through government action since that time we have been sustaining herds of buffalo in some of our national parks, one of which is the Wood Buffalo park, which lies partly in my riding. The herd in this area has increased from approximately 650 animals in 1890 to between 15,000 and 16,000 at the present time.
Another example of what could happen when conservation is thrown to the winds is the case of the whooping crane. Today in North America it is believed there are only 27 of these birds left. I am happy to say that the majority of these birds nest in my
Conservation
constituency in the Northwest Territories. Because of regulations in both the United States and Canada forbidding the shooting of these whooping cranes it is hoped that in the future their numbers will increase.
From the sentimental and recreational point of view we in Canada through our national parks and provincial game preserves, along with projects carried on by private organizations and individuals such as Ducks Unlimited and the Jack Miner bird sanctuary, are attempting to preserve some our our truly Canadian species of wildlife. I would like at this time to commend these private organizations for the active part they are playing in the conservation program, both in the United States and Canada.
Nineteen federal-provincial conferences have been held since 1922 on the subject of wildlife conservation. I understand that the twentieth meeting will take place some time in June of this year. I do not intend to go fully into the matter of the part played by the government in the conservation of wildlife, but I should like to say that the wildlife conservation branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is co-operating fully with provincial and private agencies in the broad aspects of wildlife research and management.
An example of this co-operation is the case of migratory game birds. The Canadian wildlife service, along with the United States fish and wildlife service, some provincial governments, Ducks Unlimited and other private organizations, conducts surveys each year to determine the current status of our migratory birds, particularly ducks and geese. Joint reports are prepared annually which provide information upon which to base regulations governing their shooting. Many other surveys of other species of wildlife are made throughout Canada by this branch and the results of these surveys are made available to provincial governments and other interested parties.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak more specifically of conservation as it affects the Northwest Territories. To me conservation is the intelligent use of our natural resources in the Northwest Territories, and in that part of the country conservation is also an economic problem. A large section of our population, and I speak of the Indians and Eskimos particularly, derive their living from the trapping of fur-bearing animals, and they also derive a large portion of their food from our wildlife resources.
In order to give an idea of what has happened to the trapping industry during recent years I should like to quote a few figures. In 1943-44 the total number of beaver pelts

Conservation
exported from the Northwest Territories was 13,535. In 1954-55 the figure was 11,342. The total value in 1943-44 was $463,574. The total value in 1954-55 was $168,996. Then let us take the case of ermine. I doubt very much if there are very many here who know what ermine is. There are a few from the northern part of the country who know, but some of our city slickers would not know the difference between an ermine and a rabbit. As far as ermine or weasel-now you all know-is concerned, in 1943-44 9,790 ermine were taken and exported. In 1954-55 4,852 were exported. The value in 1943-44 was $13,706. Last year the value was $4,124.
Then we come to mink. In 1943-44 the total export was 9,903 skins. In 1954-55 the figure was 3,463 skins, one-third of the number taken in 1943-44. Some people will say, and I have heard this argument before, that the number of furs taken is dependent on the price paid. Well, as I have just said, in 1943-44 some 9,903 mink were taken and the value at that time was $21.25 each. Last year when 3,463 were taken the value was $23.10 each, practically the same.
What has happened? The numbers of furbearing animals in my part of the country are being depleted. We will go on to muskrat, the main source of livelihood for my people down the Mackenzie river. In 1943-44 there were 281,255 muskrats taken. In 1948-49 there were 724,432 taken. Last year there were 344,507. Let me deal with the difference in revenue between 1943 and last year with respect to rats, and I am not referring to the rats that a member of the C.C.F. party spoke about the other day. I am talking about muskrats. The value in 1943-44 was $528,759 compared with $248,090 last year.
Then let us take white fox. For as long as I can remember white fox has been the commodity from which the Eskimo has derived his cash. In 1943-44 there were 30,420 white fox skins exported. Last year 6,877 white fox were exported. To me these figures indicate an alarming decrease not only in the number of furs taken but in the revenue to the people of my part of the country.
I will leave fur for one minute. Economically speaking, fur is that industry which supplies the native with cash in order to buy the white man's food to which he has become accustomed over the years. But now I will speak of caribou. Caribou is and has been the main source of food for the native people. I should like to refer to a survey made by Dr. Banfield of the Canadian wildlife service in 1948. In that survey Dr. Ban-field estimated that the total population of caribou at that time was 658,000. He also
[Mr. Hardie.l
estimated the total decrease per year taking into consideration on the one hand the calf crop and on the other hand the decrease brought about by hunting, what the wolves take, natural disease and so on. At that time he said our caribou population was decreasing by 50,000 animals a year.
I and a lot of other people in my constituency said, "That guy is nuts." As a matter of fact, this is a controversial subject in my constituency. There are a great number of people in my constituency who say these experts are completely off their rockers. There are other people in my constituency who agree with the experts. Now, I am a layman.


Mr. Harris:: No, no.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I do not know whom I should listen to, whether I should listen to the people in my constituency who say that the experts are crazy or whether I should listen to the experts. But I will say one thing. Last year the same department, namely the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, through its Canadian wildlife service undertook a survey of caribou. What did they find?


An hon. Member:: Caribou.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: My dear friend, I am sorry to say they did not find caribou in the numbers in which they expected to find them. What did they find?


An hon. Member:: Muskrat.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) does not know anything else but wheat. If he will just shut his trap I will continue.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge did not say a word.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: If the hon. member for Lethbridge did not say anything I am very sorry for the remark I made, and I will withdraw it. It must have been another wheat farmer from Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Was it the hon. member for Cariboo?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What happened? They came out, and as a result of their surveys last year they said the caribou population had been depleted to from 300,000 to 350,000 animals, thus leaving us in the north and your Eskimo and Indian friends 300,000 caribou as of last spring. Dr. Banfield's report, which we said was crazy-I said it; I agreed with many people-stated that the caribou were diminishing or were being depleted by 50,000 animals a year. After last year's survey-50,000 a year for six years,

300,000-we find that is practically what they are missing now. We now have 300,000 caribou left in the Northwest Territories.
To my friends on all sides of this house this may seem to be nothing. They started feeding the natives beefsteak. I want to tell my hon. friends something. This case is not the same as that of the buffalo. When the buffalo disappeared from the western plains the prairie farmer brought in livestock that could live off the same grazing grounds as those on which the buffalo had been feeding. I will defy the Minister of Agriculture or anybody else to feed cattle on the same grazing grounds the caribou have been feeding on this last century.
This is an important matter. I am appealing to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to do something about it. I know what people will say. As a matter of fact, I have heard officials of the department say it. They will say that we have at Tuktoyaktuk a reindeer herd that the government brought in 30 years ago. We spent over $1 million on those reindeer. By the time they arrived at Tuktoyaktuk there were 3,600 of them. Twenty or more years later, how many reindeer have we at Tuktoyaktuk? We have 6,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Plus Rudolph.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will tell you this. Of all hon. members to speak of Rudolph, I think the hon. member has the reddest nose. As I was saying, we have spent over $1 million on reindeer. We have not quite doubled the numbers of those reindeer in over 20 years. I must admit that we have supplied meat to some of the people up there at anything from 65 to 75 cents a pound. We might as well have been flying in beef.
Then down in Wood Buffalo park we have the buffalo which I mentioned some time ago. We have increased the population from 650 in 1890 to from 15,000 to 16,000 today. We have also slaughtered each year a certain number of those buffalo and we have sold them to the Hudson's Bay Company, who sold them back to us. That is fine and dandy; it is O.K. with me. But last year what did they do? I am not a farmer, so 1 thought I would bring up this matter in the estimates committee last year. They sold buffalo meat to Canada Packers and to Burns and Company for 5 cents a pound, f.o.b. Fort Smith. But the same department sold the same buffalo meat to the Department of Indian Affairs for 35 cents a pound for distribution as relief rations to the Indians. When I brought this matter before the estimates committee last year I thought the hon. member for Moose
Conservation
Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), a real cattleman, would be sure to nab this point, but he just let it go by.
To be serious about this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I say that something must be done. At the rate caribou have been depleting in numbers, six years from now there will not be one living caribou in the Northwest Territories. This is the food of the large majority of the people who live in that country. To the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I suggest that he really get down on his knees before the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hees:: That I must see.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now who has the red nose?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: -and do something during this period about restricting the number of caribou that are taken each year. If the natives do not take those caribou-and of course if we are to follow sound conservation policies we shall be obliged to restrict the number of caribou they take-something must be done to feed these people. But when I look at the estimates this year I find they are less than they were last year. That may be all right, but I have not found that there has been any increase to provide these people with meat. Something must be done, Mr. Speaker.
Now I shall leave buffalo for a minute and come back to the reindeer situation. We brought in these reindeer, and the idea was that we would do so in order to provide the starving people with meat. After we brought in the reindeer the government decided that it would be a fine idea to distribute these reindeer to certain Eskimo families who would herd them and live off them. At the slaughtering season, in August or September, when these reindeer were fat they would move them in to the reindeer station and slaughter them and sell the meat to the Eskimos, the Hudson's Bay Company or any other white people. That was fine. It sounded good. As a matter of fact I think I even heard in the estimates committee talk about extending this idea to other parts of the country, putting more reindeer in other parts of the Northwest Territories. Well, herding reindeer is not the same as ranching cattle. In so far as cattle are concerned, you put up a fence and the cattle stay inside. The reindeer are roving over 549,000 square miles of country.
These Eskimos are the sort of people, like you and me, who like to visit with their friends once in a while. Put yourselves in their position. They follow a herd of these reindeer around the country. They say the

Conservation
reindeer is okay and they eat it, but once in a while they like to see something other than reindeer. They say to themselves, let us go and visit Joe Kuhali, 100 miles away. It is Easter time, and that is a good time to go away. They go away and leave the reindeer. When they come back where are the reindeer? They start running around and finally get half of them back, but half of them are gone. Do you know where they have gone? The caribou move through the country in a wild state during the migration period, and the reindeer follow suit. Reindeer have been shot at Muskox lake, 1,500 miles away from the reindeer station.
As a matter of fact I had a trapper say to me, "A funny thing, I shot a caribou yesterday and this caribou had half its ear cut off; I never saw that before." He said it was cut; there was no fooling about it. Sometimes at the reindeer station they cut half an ear to mark a certain animal for a certain band in which they put him. This reminds me of a story about the difference between caribou and reindeer. A few years back there was an Indian, I think his name was Joe Blondin, who was up around Fort Normandin and Aklavik, and he shot what he thought was a caribou. What happened? The police brought him in because he had shot a reindeer, not a caribou.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not Tucker?


Mr. Tucker:: You had better not go up there.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: You took the words right out of my mouth, my friend. What happened? They brought this man in and charged him with shooting a reindeer, a protected animal. Of course they held court and the crown prosecutor was there. The Indian defended himself. The crown prosecutor said, "Now, there must be some difference between a reindeer and a caribou." Of course he did not know. They called in a scientist. The scientist said that so far as he was aware the only difference between a caribou and a reindeer-I do not know which way it was- was that the caribou's tooth was so many millimeters longer than the reindeer or vice versa. In any event, this man was expected to go out into the wild, open up this animal's jaw and measure the teeth. However, it happened we had a very fair magistrate at that time and this man was set free.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say to this house that caribou mean no more to the average person in Canada, and I could talk until I am blue in the face, than the buffalo

did before the railroads went west. But in my part of the country they are the very lifeblood. We eat this animal. Something has to be done. I am not a scientist, and I do not know the difference between a tooth of one animal and another. I cannot give you the answers but I am sure the department of northern affairs, through its Canadian wildlife service, knows the answer. I am hoping that the Northwest Territories administration, which also comes under that department, will do something about the recommendations and the results of the surveys that have been conducted by the Canadian wildlife service.
I should also like to say that we are trying to educate our people in that part of the country in conservation measures. There is one book I would suggest should be a part of that curriculum, a book written by Deward Allen entitled "Our Wild Life Legacy". It should be not only in the grade schools of that country but also in the high schools. It should be put into the trapper's associations, because this book will tell those people more about conservation that I could ever tell them.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a paragraph I once read. I do not know the name of the author, but perhaps someone may know who he is after I have read it. He is the person who should be credited with it. He says:
Because man has made hash of nature's system of checks and balances, he finds he must go to a lot of trouble from time to time to straighten out his mishandling of the resources given him by nature. But he seems to go about it the hard way, making the same mistakes and trying the same remedies again and again. He plunders the resources, then works overtime to restore them or find a substitute.
I hope that the federal government, who are responsible for the wildlife resources of the Northwest Territories, will have learned from the experience of the United States and all the other provinces of Canada, and will not make the same mistakes over again.
I wish to adjourn the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately the hon. member's time is exhausted.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Wednesday we shall take the following items in the following order: first, the third reading of the wheat bills, beginning with Bill No. 82 and then Bill No. 83; then the motions to set

up committees, beginning with that on estimates, then that with respect to research, then that with respect to criminal law, and then the federal district commission.
There is a notice of a further committee on the order paper with respect to railways and shipping, which will appear in Votes and
Business of the House Proceedings tomorrow. Then we shall take the resolution with respect to the industrial development bank, the Public Service Superannuation Act, and the Small Loans Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Blair: 1.	What were total stocks of butter in Canada on January 1, of each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956?
2.	What were government-owned stocks of butter on January 1, of each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1. Year	Pounds
1952 			 44,820,000
1953 			 54,548,000
1954 			 71,192,000
1955 			 91,025,000
1956 			 100,030,000
(As reported by	dominion bureau i
statistics.)	
2. 1952 			 10,271,000
1953 			 36,263.000
1954 			 49,184,000
1955 				 73,412,000
1956 			 81,215,000
(From records of agricultural prices support board.)


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREIGHT CARS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways placed orders for an additional supply of (a) box cars; (b) freight cars of other types?
2.	If so, with what firms have such orders been placed, and what are the numbers of each type of car ordered from each such firm?
3.	When is delivery of such cars expected?
4.	Is the Canadian National Railways building any box cars or other types of freight cars in its own shops? If so, how many are being built.
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
2.	Freight equipment was ordered in 1955 as follows:
50-ton box cars-Eastern Car Company (1,700); Canadian Car and Foundry (1,400); National Steel Car Corp. (650).
70-ton gondola cars-Canadian Car and Foundry (200); Eastern Car Company (100).
70-ton covered hopper cars-Marine Industries Ltd. (200).
Freight refrigerator cars-National Steel Car Corp. (425).
50-ton flat cars-Canadian Car and Foundry (100).
Automobile transporter cars-Canadian Car and Foundry (25).
70-ton ore cars-Marine Industries Ltd. (30).
3.	Some of the equipment has already been delivered, and delivery of the remainder will take place throughout 1956.
4.	No.



QUEEN ELIZABETH HOTEL


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): 1.	What architectural firms have been retained in connection with the design and construction of the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal?
2.	On what date were such firms first retained?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. The design and construction of the Queen Elizabeth hotel are and have been under the direction of the chief architect of the Canadian National Railways in consultation with the firm of Holabird and Root and Burgee and Associates, Chicago, which firm was retained as consultant on November 15, 1946, in connection with the development of the Montreal terminal area. No other architectural firms have been retained.



CIVILIAN DISCHARGE STATISTICS, NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. Dinsdale: How many civilian employees age 65 or over have been discharged by the Department of National Defence each month during the past year, at each of the military camps in Canada?
Answer by: Mr. Campney:

Questions



CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AGE 65 OR OVER WHOSE SERVICES WERE TERMINATED AT MILITARY CAMPS IN 1955. BUTTER STOCKS

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): What was the total amount of butter held by the Department of Agriculture on January 31, 1956?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
The agricultural prices support board held 72,826,889 pounds of butter on January 31, 1956.



BUTTER DISTRIBUTION TO CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Maltais: 1.	What quantity of butter has been distributed to charitable institutions in Canada under the assistance policy of the Department of Agriculture since February, 1955?
2.	What quantity of butter has been distributed in the province of Quebec?
3.	At what average price was this butter distributed throughout Canada in the summer of 1955?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1.	Up to February 3,	1956-6,309,807
pounds.
2.	2,953,549 pounds.
3.	Each institution has received a discount of 21 cents per pound on butter distributed isinder this program.



MARSHLAND REHABILITATION


Mr. Brooks: 1.	How much money has been spent by the federal government under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, in each of the maritime provinces in the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955?
2.	What is the total amount spent up to January 1, 1956 under this act?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1.
Fiscal	Prince Edward	Nova	NewYear	Island	Scotia	Brunswick1952-53	$114.04 $	867,997.47	$ 777,453.581953-54	185.30	986,997.03	1,006,011.101954-55	87.52	876,749.77	670,611.751955-56 to	Dec. 31/55	935,915.30	662,144.14

2.	Total amount spent up to January 1, 1956, under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act: $9,319,960.56.



BUTTER SALES TO INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf): 1.	How many pounds of butter were sold to institutions in each province since coming into force of this policy of the federal government?
2.	What amount has been paid by such institutions in each of the provinces for this product?
Answer by: Mr. Gardiner:
1.
pounds
Atlantic provinces	 480,684
Quebec	 2,953,549
Ontario	 1,456,221
Prairie provinces	 1,023,789
British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories	 395,564
Total sold to institutions at February 3, 1956	 6,309,807

Questions
2.	Institutions in all provinces have received a discount of 21 cents per pound on butter distributed under this program.
Note:	The above figures for the Atlantic and prairie provinces are the actual totals for the areas with approximate estimates for individual provinces as follows:
pounds
Newfoundland	 5,850
Prince Edward Island	 55,674
Nova Scotia	 224,056
New Brunswick	 195,104
Total Atlantic provinces		480,684
Manitoba	 291,686
Saskatchewan	 259,919
Alberta	 472,184
Total prairie provinces	 1,023,789



TRANSPORT-EXTENSION OF RAILWAY ACT TO WATER TRAFFIC

Mr. Barnett: 1. Are there any instances where the board of transport commissioners has extended and applied
Year	Research Board
1944- 45	(a)	
1945- 46	(a)	
1946- 47	(a)	
1947- 48	(a)	
1948-	49	$10,2811949-	50	
11,0101950-	51	
14,8671951-	52	
14,3871952-	53	
18,0661953-	54	
16,5701954-	55	
18,973(a)	Prior to 1948-49 expenditure was not segregated to show oyster research separately.(b)	Expenditure records are not maintained by counties. However, one only oyster farming station is operated in New Brunswick and it is located in Gloucester county.



OYSTER PRODUCTION, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total production of oysters in the maritime provinces in each year from 1945 to 1955, inclusive?
2.	What was the total production of oysters in Gloucester county, New Brunswick, for each of the above years?
3.	What was the landed value of oysters in Gloucester county, for each year from 1945 to 1955, inclusive?
the provisions of the Railway Act to traffic by water, as provided for by the present section 363 of the said act?
2.	If so, to what companies, to what traffic carried by them, and between what points?
3.	What instances of this application of the act are currently operative?
Answer by: Mr. Marler:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.



OYSTER RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total amount spent by the fisheries research board for oyster research or culture, in each year from 1945 to 1955, inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount spent in Gloucester county, New Brunswick, for oyster research or culture, in each year from 1945 to 1955, inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Sinclair:
1 and 2. The fisheries research board is responsible for research and the Department of Fisheries for oyster culture or farming. Following information is provided on this basis:
Department
Total for Maritimes	(b) New Brunswick
$21,042	$ 640
25,018	1,762
24,309	810
33,572	2,322
45,876	8,944
56,657	8,567
56,791	8,212
54,279	8,613
52,695	8,866
.54,236	8,918
54,198	8,513
Answer by: Mr. Sinclair:
1.	Total landings, maritime provinces* 1.
Year	'000 lbs.
1945		 7,089
1946		 8,014
1947		 8,051
1948		11,432
1949		11,272
1950		10,684
1951		 6,885
1952		 7,891
1953		 8,160
19542	 5,002
19552	 6,243

2 and 3.	Landings!	Landed valueYear	'000 lbs.	$'0001945 	2,012	841946 	1,743	791947 	1,849	921948 	1,883	931949 	1,829	901950 	
735	381951 	1,173	80
Questions
	Landingsi	Landed
		value
Year	'000 lbs.	$'0001952 	...1,268	871953 	.. .1,630	12019542 	... 938	7019552 	...2,185	108'Landings are given	in terms	of landedeight, i.e. in shell.	'Preliminary figures and subject	to revision.
1611

Tuesday, February 28, 1956