1957-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in informing the house that today there appears an announcement in the London Gazette that by virtue of letters patent Her Majesty the Queen has conferred upon His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is indicated in the announcement that it is Her Majesty's wish that henceforth His Royal Highness should be known as His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. I know that all hon. members and the people of Canada will rejoice with us at this high recognition which Her Majesty has bestowed upon His Royal Plighness who, over recent years, has been tireless in his worldwide services on behalf of the crown and of the commonwealth.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to inform the house that the governor general has just approved the appointment of a royal commission to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland in accordance with section 29 of the terms of union with Newfoundland. The terms of reference of the commission are of course those set forth in that section of the terms of union.
We have been fortunate in securing the services as commissioners of Hon. John McNair, chief justice of New Brunswick, who will be the chairman, Hon. Sir Albert Walsh, chief justice of the supreme court of Newfoundland, and Professor John Deutsch of the University of British Columbia, a distinguished former public servant of Canada. I should like to lay on the table two copies of the order in council establishing the commission.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the Prime Minister when it is expected that commission will be able to commence its work?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I assume it will commence its work almost immediately. It will no doubt, as other royal commissions have done, have a preliminary meeting to determine the procedure that the commissioners will follow in making their investigation and probably determining the time within which they will expect to receive briefs from the government of Newfoundland and those in Newfoundland who may wish to make representations. There will also no doubt be representations made on behalf of the government of Canada with the information we have about the facts that will have to be the basis of whatever recommendations the commission will find it opportune to make in strict accord with the terms of union which, as the hon. gentleman will remember, were confirmed by an act of this parliament and by an act of the parliament at New Westminster because it has a bearing upon the whole of the British North America Act and its amendments.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Will it be possible to include some of the general problems of the Atlantic region under this commission, even though it may be a little bit further than the terms of union?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; this commission will be restricted to carrying out the terms of union. They will probably have to examine what the position is in the Atlantic region in order to come to a conclusion with respect to the maintenance of public services in Newfoundland equal to those that prevail in the Atlantic area without a heavier burden of provincial taxation in Newfoundland than in the other provinces of the Atlantic area. Those will be matters that they will have to look into. But from the qualifications of the members of the commission I expect and hope that their recommendations will be strictly in accord with the terms of union that were sanctioned by parliament at the time the union took place.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the announcement which was just made regarding the royal commission. Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that the terms of reference will be sufficiently broad to allow an inquiry

Inquiries of the Ministry into the working conditions and job opportunities of employees of Canadian National Railways who, I understand, have been affected under this one section?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. lady is quite as competent as I could be to interpret the terms of union and the manner in which such distinguished jurists as the chief justice of New Brunswick and the chief justice of Newfoundland, and such a competent economist as Mr. John Deutsch, will feel it their duty to interpret them in order to carry out the intent of that clause of the terms of union.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister bring the house up to date with regard to the situation in the Suez canal. We read dispatches to the effect that Egypt is now delaying the clearing of the canal. Yesterday afternoon there were press dispatches to the effect that she had rejected the proposal of Great Britain, the United States and Norway for the temporary operation of the canal once it is cleared. Canada has quite a large stake in this clearance of the canal. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister could tell us what the actual situation is at the present time?


Right Hon.  L. S.@: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no official information that goes beyond what has been reported in the newspapers. I have seen over the last few days these reports that there was delay in the operations but there has been no report yet to that effect from General Wheeler who is in charge of the operations.
With respect to the proposals that had been made as to the manner in which the canal would be operated after it was cleared, those proposals were made by the principal users of the canal of which, as the hon. gentleman knows, Canada is not one; and we have no official information in that regard. As the hon. gentleman knows, there is still uncertainty as to whether the debate is going to take place this morning or whether there is to be another postponement. Our information was that the debate would begin this morning, when the attitude to be taken by the various members will become officially known.


Howard Charles Green: Can the Prime Minister say
whether it is a fact that Egypt has rejected this proposal for the operation of the canal?


I ask that because, as I understand it, the debate in the United Nations today is not directly concerned with the Suez canal at all?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no official information about that. All I know is what the newspapers have reported both about the terms of the proposal and the fact that it is now stated Egypt has not accepted those terms.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister respecting the Middle East situation. It arises out of his answer in regard to the newspaper item that that is all he could go by. Has the Prime Minister considered a note of protest to the United Nations to the effect that the United Nations is not living up to its agreement in the use of the Canadian forces now in the Middle East?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, of course, we will consider anything that is brought to our attention, but it is not my impression at this time that there are grounds for any kind of protest.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. James (Durham):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Is the government planning to recognize the fact that today is the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scout and Girl Guide movements?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisler of Citizenship and Immigration):: As one boy scout to another, I thank the hon. member for Durham, and the Minister of Finance joins with me, for asking this question. This morning I sent a telegram to the commissioner of the boy scouts in the following terms. Perhaps, sir, you would permit me to read it.
As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and a former boy scout, I wish to express-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: And still a boy scout.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Still doing a good deed every day.


Mr. Brooks:: What old lady did you help across the street today?


An hon. Member:: One of the Conservative party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would always be willing to offer my arm to the hon. gentleman if he needs it. Perhaps, sir, I might begin the message again:
As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and a former boy scout, I wish to express my warmest commendation of the boy scout movement on the 100th anniversary of the birth of its founder, Lord Baden-Powell.
The boy scout movement exerts a great force in fostering goodwill and understanding. By its very ideal of tolerance and service which knows no frontiers of race, colour or creed, the boy scout movement fosters the ideals on which our Canadian citizenship is based.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Since he has advised us that he is a good boy scout and since good boy scouts generally admit mistakes I wonder whether he is still not satisfied that the Ontario government considers legal all marriages performed previously to July 1, 1956, by an Indian chief in the traditional Long House ceremony?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for days for the hon. gentleman to ask this question so I could admit that my pipe line to Queen's Park is evidently not quite as good as his.
In view of the great interest there seems to be in this question of Long House marriages I perhaps might be permitted to make a brief statement about it. Those marriages which are performed on the Six Nations Indian reserve according to the Long House rites have, as a matter of fact, recently been recognized by the government of Ontario. I received a report from the director of Indian affairs on this subject about 10 minutes after I left the house after the hon. gentleman asked his question the other day and it was to the effect that the government of Ontario has now decided, regardless of whether they are registered or not, to recognize all marriages performed according to Long House rites before July 1,	1956, as legitimate
marriages. As a consequence, the registrar of the Indian affairs branch of my department is proceeding immediately to make the necessary corrections in the band lists. There are a number of other cases affected as well as the one the hon. gentleman was asking about.
Since the action taken by the Ontario government was taken at the request of my department and as a result of a conference I had with the council of the band during a visit to the reserve on September 27, 1955, 82715-99
Inquiries of the Ministry I should like to express warm appreciation of this co-operation from the Ontario authorities.
The recognition of marriages performed before July 1, 1956, will assist the Indian affairs branch of my department in dealing with a number of outstanding problems. Unfortunately, the whole problem is not yet satisfactorily solved.
My understanding is that the legislation of the Ontario legislature provides for the licensing of chiefs of the Long House to perform marriages and for the registration of such marriages by the chiefs. Up to the present some of the chiefs, not all of them, have not been willing to comply with the provision regarding licensing and registration though others have done so. I sincerely hope that the whole matter will be satisfactorily worked out in the very near future so that unfortunate situations such as that which prompted the questions in the house recently will not recur.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister willing to admit that it is his responsibility to have the Long House chieftains register themselves with the provincial government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, this is a free
country and if these free citizens of Canada do not choose to act in a certain way, in their relations with the provincial authorities, I know of no law of this parliament or any other power inherent in me to compel them to do so and I hope there never will be such a law.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: While I know the Minister of Public Works is primarily concerned at this time with considering an appropriate distribution of those public works, I must disturb his meditations to ask the hon. gentleman a question. In order that members of parliament can correctly answer inquiries concerning the procedures covering the flying of our national flag over the parliament buildings, will the minister table a copy of the regulations covering these procedures and give the authority for the same?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I did not have an opportunity of
seeing this notice because I was engaged until the moment I came into the house in trying to find a solution to another very serious problem, and that is the problem of the coal miners at Westville, Nova Scotia;
1554	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry but I did consult my distinguished boy scout colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, just a moment ago and I was informed that the order in council in question was dated September 5, 1945, which I thought was a remarkable feat of memory.
I presume the order in council has been tabled, but if it has not I will obtain a copy and see that it is tabled.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary
question. Does that order not simply refer to the flying of the red ensign and not to the procedure as to whether the flag shall be flown at full or half mast and for whom?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that is correct,
but I will check the content of the order in council.


Mr. Fleming:: I have a supplementary
question to ask the minister. Was that order not promulgated under the provisions of the War Measures Act?


Robert Henry Winters: My memory is not as good
as that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, but I understand the answer is no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister tell us
at some time under what statutory authority the order derives validity?


Robert Henry Winters: I will be glad to do that.



BOX CAR ALLOCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister say whether it is contemplated to have set up under the Canadian wheat board a special committee to handle the allocation of box cars and if so when such a committee will begin to function and what its general powers will be?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of allocation of box cars at country points has been handled by the Canadian wheat board for the past several years. The only change being considered is the setting up of a formal traffic department in the wheat board. We have had a conference and discussed the matter. It is my understanding that the wheat board intends to set up a traffic department. The chief of the traffic department will be immediately responsible for handling box car allocation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am wondering if the minister could say whether the chief of such a new


department will meet with farm organizations, railways and other interested groups in a general conference as was suggested by the agriculture committee last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I assume that the chief of the department will be an expert traffic man and I would also assume he will take such steps as he deems desirable to carry out his duties.



REPORTED EMBARGO ON MOVEMENTS TO LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister comment on the report that an embargo has been placed on grain moving to the head of the lakes. Is this embargo because of a drop in foreign markets? When will it be lifted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As is usual at this time of the year the working space at the lakehead is pretty well filled to capacity and the limitation is that shipments into the lakehead must correspond to the rail shipments out of the lakehead. A similar restriction has been instituted every year at this time, and that is the reason for a limitation on loadings for the lakehead.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he would inform us how many people are going to prison every month by reason of the fact that no progress has been made with regard to the matter of probation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Do not attempt to answer that question; it is ridiculous.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Greenwood had meditated upon this question before he asked it I am sure he would have realized that the number of those who do not go to prison because of certain steps not being taken do not take the form of statistics that any person can discover.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand that the minister is refusing to answer my question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the orders of the Prime Minister.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec East: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the suggestion of the Prime Minister, because I do not think that is the kind of question which should take up the time of the house in trying to promote a miniature debate on a matter that includes assertions by the hon. member that are certainly very debatable.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON REPORTED CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister give the house a statement concerning the conference to be held in Washington, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, on March 7 and 8 next between Canadian and United States officials concerning the question of tolls and other matters relating to the St. Lawrence seaway?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make any statement at this time on that subject. These are discussions to be carried on between the officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation. I think it would be premature, to say the least, for me to make any statement at this time on this matter.


An hon. Member:: Wait until Chevrier is back in the house.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Public Works or to the Postmaster General. When is it now expected that the new post office building in Winnipeg will be ready for occupancy?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the exact date but it will be in the very near future. I shall find out and give the exact date to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Public Works a supplementary question? Has any decision yet been made as to what will be done with the old post office building?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall take that as notice, too.


An hon. Member:: It will be used as the C.C.F. headquarters.
82715-99J
Municipal Grants Act BRIDGES



BURLINGTON, ONT.    INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. As the result of his conference with the mayor of Hamilton yesterday can the minister now tell us what progress has been made concerning the plans for the low level bridge over the Burlington channel?


Robert Henry Winters: I have here a notice of a question on the same subject from the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke). He was at the conference yesterday with the mayor of Hamilton, which was also attended by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and me. This conference had to do with low level traffic. The discussions arose out of an arrangement that had previously been made whereby the federal government agreed to participate in the cost of a high level bridge on the understanding that the provincial government would assume responsibility for all low level vehicular traffic. Since that time the provincial government has decided to build the high level bridge without any participation on the part of the federal government. Under those circumstances the federal government will continue the maintenance of a low level bridge. Whether or not a new bascule bridge will be built to replace the one knocked out in 1952 depends on the decision concerning the centre pier in the canal, and that decision has not yet been made.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Will the bridge at Burlington be under the jurisdiction of the member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke)?


Robert Henry Winters: We are always glad to have his advice, which is very valuable.



MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W, E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 158, to amend the Municipal Grants Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the debate on the resolution a great many questions were asked and a number of opinions expressed concerning the contents of this bill. The bill has only been distributed overnight and I am sure that hon. members have had an opportunity to see it but have not had sufficient time to consider it at great length.
[Stage Direction]
Municipal Grants Act
However, last night I announced that it would be our intention this year to do what we did on former occasions, that is, have the bill go to the standing committee on banking and commerce. I could at this time answer questions directed to me but it seems that if I answered the questions the answers would probably not be the kind of answers which hon. gentlemen might have expected because of my inability to project myself fully into their minds. That might lead to further questions and debate.
I would suggest to the house that since all members who spoke agreed with the principle of the bill and the only questions were with respect to the interpretation of the clauses in it, and that in general they thought we ought to be going a lot further in solving what was considered to be the municipal problem my suggestion is that we do not protract the second reading debate but rather that we wait until the bill reaches the standing committee on banking and commerce where specific questions with respect to airports and buildings of one kind or another in the respective constituencies could be answered better.
May I then just answer the general complaint with respect to the bill which was made by a good many hon. members who spoke. They quoted what I had said in introducing the resolution to the effect that this was not a solution of the municipal problem. They made reference particularly to the fact that action being taken had nothing to do with the fiscal need of the municipal corporations and on that based their objections that since that seemed to be the motive behind the bill there ought to be another motive, namely, the solution of the problem of municipal corporations, their taxation rights and the like.
I only wish to add that my remarks were apropos and I think correct in that there is nothing in the bill except with respect to the payment of grants in lieu of taxes to municipal corporations. I do not profess in the bill to be dealing in any manner whatever with the problems municipal corporations may have. The intention is solely that of providing for the payment of a grant in lieu of taxes to municipal corporations where there is federal property. I agree that there are details with which hon. members might disagree, but on the larger issue of whether or not municipal corporations should have the opportunity of a dominion-provincial-municipal conference to allocate further fields of taxation, whether or not the share of the tax dollar so called, which I think has been referred to by every opposition speaker, is

correct or whether or not a different interpretation could be applied, that does not seem to me germane to the particular debate at the moment.
Let me point out, however, that those who quoted the Gordon report with respect to the problems of the municipalities might with equal advantage, I think, have gone on to quote the rest of their remarks in which mention was made that the income of the municipal corporations with respect to personal disposable income is lower at the present time than it has ever been before. I would not want to add anything more to that although those who read the report will see what conclusion the royal commission came to with respect to that particular fact.
I do want to add, however, that so far as we have been able to do so in drafting the bill it is not the intention to withdraw from any position we have taken up to the present time and that the results should be increased payments of grants in any of the circumstances under which grants are now being made and in addition, of course, other municipal corporations will obtain a grant where they have not already done so.
I do think, however, that the specific details would be dealt with better in the standing committee which has the matter fresh in its mind because it considered the amendment of only two years ago. Therefoie, sir, I would prefer to answer questions there at some length and if they are not fully answered to the satisfaction of hon. members there will, of course, be a further debate when the bill comes back to committee of the whole.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is justified in having said that the principle of the bill has met with approval. I also appreciate the force of his suggestion that questions might perhaps be more conveniently answered before the banking and commerce committee. I regret, as a matter of fact, that we did not press him to answer further questions when we were at the resolution stage but that is over now. I do not propose to debate the matter further at the present time.
The minister has been very frank in pointing out the limitations of the bill and actually the bill deals almost wholly with the details of the application of the extension which is brought about. The minister referred in particular to one aspect of the Gordon report with regard to the percentage of disposable income. I would simply remind the minister that it is small comfort to people who find their municipal taxes perhaps a trifle lower percentagewise because after all it is they who

are paying the terrifically high taxes to the federal level of government.
While we recognize, as the minister has pointed out, the definite limitations of this particular bill, I hope when we go to the banking and commerce committee there will be recognition of the fact pointed out so generally throughout the debate that the legislation does not make a dint at all in the larger problem and that we shall be able to pursue that argument further and perhaps make progress in the minister's mind at least in convincing him and through him his colleagues that this problem, which as so many of us tried to emphasize in the debate is a pressing one, is crying out for treatment and that we are not acting our age if we rely wholly on this present very small instalment of what needs to be done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask a question or put a suggestion to the minister. When the bill comes before the banking and commerce committee will the minister concur in the suggestion that the Canadian association of mayors and municipalities be heard before the committee? There is value, of course, in having the bill referred to a standing committee for review where the officials of the department of government sponsoring the measure can be heard and questioned in search of further information. It strikes me, however, that here is an additional opportunity that all parties in the house might welcome to hear directly from representatives of the association of mayors and municipalities with respect to this measure.


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


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is an interesting one but I would think that we ought not to do it this year for the rather obvious reason that there is no new principle in the bill except with respect to the added grants that may be made. We have only had something like five years' experience with the legislation and as I made clear the last time we amended it it was on the basis of the experience we had had up to that time that we were reducing the 4 per cent to 2 per cent. It is as a result of the experience since that time that we are going down now to the payment of a grant in lieu of taxes at the full assessed value of the property in the municipal corporation.
Once this principle has been in operation for even a short term we would then know,
I would think, what particular complaints there might be from municipal corporations as to the application of the principle, and I think it would be more profitable if we had
Canadian Farm Loan Act representations then from the municipal corporations as a body rather than individually with respect to their particular complaints.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we confine ourselves this year to extending the grant system to municipal corporations so that these payments may be made as early as possible during the taxation year and so that, in some cases at least, the municipal mill rate may be lower than otherwise, and then after a year or two of experience we could receive the representations that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 21, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Harris-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to authorize a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act to increase the authorized capital of the board from $3 million to $4 million.
Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take any more time to discuss this resolution. However last evening the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance saw fit to refer to some remarks I had made previously, and I propose to deal briefly with the matter at the present time. A week ago, Mr. Chairman, I had this to say concerning the farm loan board, as recorded at page 1326 of Hansard:
About the only thing we gained from that lengthy discussion was an improvement in the application form that is used in applying for loans.
I wish to point out that I said about the only thing we gained from last year's work on this particular topic was an improvement in the application form that was used by the Canadian farm loan board. I meant that, Mr. Chairman. However, last night the parliamentary assistant had this to say about the matter. I should like to quote from page 1535 of Hansard:
One hon. member, I believe it was the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, suggested that out of that labour of last session, including the work of the banking and commerce committee he felt little had developed except we had streamlined the application form. I feel that is an uninformed statement, Mr. Chairman, to say the least.
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant is entitled to his own opinion. On the other hand I should like him to respect my right to an opinion as well.

Canadian Farm Loan Act
I have in my hand the report of the Canadian farm loan board for the year ended March 31, 1956. Dealing with the activities of the Canadian farm loan board in the four western provinces I find that in 1955 the number of first mortgage loans that were granted in British Columbia was 100 and that last year it was 94. In the province of Alberta, in 1955 307 first mortgage loans were granted; in 1956 there were 314 such loans granted. In Saskatchewan in 1955 726 first mortgage loans were granted and in 1956 there were 671. In Manitoba in 1955 200 first mortgage loans were granted and in 1956 there were 229.
I know the parliamentary assistant is extremely anxious to impress upon the members of the committee the fact that there has been an improvement. We are prepared to admit that there has been an improvement in the Canadian Farm Loan Act over the years, from $5,000 maximum to $10,000 maximum to $15,000 maximum. We are ready to concede that fact, Mr. Chairman. But we also remember the days of the change from the oxcart to the horse to the T-model Ford. As far as I am personally concerned the activities of the farm loan board are just about as modern as is the T-model Ford.
In comparing the years 1955 and 1956 as to the numbers of first mortgage loans, I find that the number in 1956 was down by 25 as compared with what it was in 1955 in the four western provinces.
Coming to loans granted on second mortgage, I find that in the province of British Columbia in 1955 there were four such loans granted and in 1956 there were four such loans granted. In Alberta in 1955 there were 33 such loans granted and in 1956 there were 16 such loans granted. In Saskatchewan in 1955 there were 237 loans granted under second mortgage and last year only 124. In the province of Manitoba in 1955 there were 51 loans granted under second mortgage and only 13 in 1956. In other words, comparing the two years 1955 and 1956, I find that there was a decrease of 168 loans in 1956 as compared with the number granted in 1955.
Mr. Chairman, in my language that is not progress. It just means that the farmers of those four western provinces are not able to make the use of this farm loan board that they should be able to make. It is true that, comparing those two years, the total amount lent to the farmers of those provinces increased last year slightly over $13,000 above the figure in 1955. But we must remember, Mr. Chairman, that $13,000 is not the maximum of one loan which could be granted under the act as it stands at the present time.

Last Friday I put on the record five recommendations which this group would make to the parliamentary assistant and, through him, to the Minister of Finance as to things which we feel should be done immediately in order to make the farm loan board operative in such a fashion that it will be of use to the farmers of Canada. At that time I suggested that the maximum loan granted be increased from $15,000 to $20,000. Second, I suggested that the term of repayment of the loan be extended from 30 years to 40 years and that the amount of the loan which is granted upon the appraised valuation be extended from 65 per cent as it is at the present time to 80 per cent. I also suggested at that time that a good look should be taken at the possibility of lowering the interest rate charged on loans under the farm loan act. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I said that I felt that a more optimistic or realistic approach should be made to the whole matter of appraisal of farm property in order to bring it in line with present-day valuations of farm property and the cost of machinery and equipment that go to make up the farm.
I do not feel that I am alone in this matter, Mr. Chairman. I know that the farm organizations of western Canada or of Canada as a whole are greatly concerned about the activities of the Canadian farm loan board. Just this week the Interprovincial Farm Union Council presented a brief to the government and in it they had this to say-I am quoting from page 3. This deals with credit and so on:
Fifty per cent of the farms in Canada are undercapitalized and as a result receive low or subsistence incomes. The solution of the problem facing these units lies in increasing either their actual size or their total production. Either course will require increased capital. This capital will have to be provided in the form of long-term and intermediate credit at low interest rates. The credit advanced should be directed to the farmers who need it. That is, particularly to those in the low-income group or to younger farmers who are commencing farm operations.
Just there, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to you that we must do something to encourage young men to get back to the farm. In the last few years the trend has been for them to leave the farm. Within a few years we are going to find our farms in Canada manned by a group of tired old men if something is not done soon. To continue the quotation from the brief:
It should be available for expansion in land or buildings and for purchase of livestock and equipment necessary to put the unit on an economic basis.
Farther on in the brief we find this:
In view of the displacement that has been and still is taking place on our farms, . . .

That is the continual change with respect to people living on our farms.
-we cannot emphasize too strongly the need for implementation of this credit policy, so that the present crop of potential farmers may not be lost to the industry.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is a serious situation which is worthy of great concern on the part of the government. Then again the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its brief which was submitted to the members of the cabinet on February 15 dealt with this matter. Under the title of "Farm Credit" they had this to say:
A great many farmers, indeed, put improvement in present farm credit policies at the top of the list of those matters which require action by the federal government.
I want to emphasize that quotation.
This organization is speaking for the farmers of Canada just as the interprovincial farm union speaks for a large section of the farmers of Canada. I continue quoting:
There is, first of all, the matter of the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act. Some improvements in this act were made at the last session-
I submit that I am conscious of the improvements that were made last year and, small though they were, they were improvements.
-of parliament, particularly in respect to the maximum size of the loan-
Yes, that is true.
-the length of term of mortgages and the percentage of the appraised value which may be loaned. We feel, however, that much more needs to be done to put the operation of the Canadian Farm Loan Board on a satisfactory basis. The unanimous opinion of those of our members who have had occasion to deal with the board is that its appraisal and lending policy is unnecessarily cautious and conservative. The result is that the young man who looks to the board as a source of credit for getting established in farming finds that the amount which is available from the board is entirely inadequate to his purposes. We would recommend a review and liberalization of the board's appraisal practices, and legislative provision for increasing the percentage of the appraised value that may be borrowed by farmers, especially where the amount of money borrowed is moderate.
I do feel that in speaking last Friday perhaps I made a mistake. But it is not the type of mistake that the parliamentary assistant says I made. I said that about the only thing that was gained as a result of last year's discussion of the matter was an improvement in the application form. Perhaps I should have said that was the only thing that mattered to the farmers of the west; that is about all they gained from it. The story this year is that the number of loans granted as compared with last year is down; the amount of money, on the other hand, is up.
Canadian Farm Loan Act


Mr. Benidickson:: But I said your figures refer to a period prior to last year's changes.


James Alexander Smith: If the
parliamentary assistant would just sit down, he will have an opportunity to speak later. I realize he is an impatient and very proud man but I am equally impatient and equally proud. The figures are right before me in the report of the Canadian Farm Loan Board for the year ended March 31, 1956. If the parliamentary assistant would like me to repeat them, I will.


William Moore Benidickson: But they were all for the period before last year's work.


James Alexander Smith: Then you bring in this year's figures and we will have a look at them.


William Moore Benidickson: I did last night.


James Alexander Smith: I trust, Mr. Chairman, that when the parliamentary assistant does bring in those figures the reason for some of the optimism which he has displayed concerning the operations of this board will be brought to light. Certainly, the Canadian federation of agriculture and the interprovincial farm union do not share his optimism regarding the operations of the farm loan board.


William Moore Benidickson: In reply may I just say that I did not intend singling out the hon. member particularly for remarks he made a week ago when the resolution was introduced. I simply referred to his remarks yesterday because they seemed rather typical of the criticism we were receiving from a number of members to the effect that a great deal of effort had been put on the matter of farm loans by this house last year, and he said he thought it had accomplished very little except a new application form.
The point I made last night, and which I will just repeat, is that we only have figures for the current period of 10 months because there are some two months to go in the present fiscal year. I remind my friend again that every figure he put on the record this morning has reference to the activities of the board prior to those labours to which he referred. Last night I pointed out that if one compares the full year ending March 31, 1956, with the current 10 months period that is the operations of the board subsequent to the labours of last year, he will find both in respect to the number of loans, with respect to the amount of money lent and the average size of the loan, that those figures representing the progress over a relatively short period of time are very encouraging. I will just repeat them.
1560	HOUSE OF
Canadian Farm Loan Act
In Canada as a whole, for the period of the current 10 months, the number of loans was 2,751 as compared with 1,949 for the full year a year ago. The amount of loans approved amounts to $13,109,000 for the 10-month period as compared with $7,791,000 for the full year period to the end of the last fiscal year. The average amount of loan for the 10-month period ending January 31, 1957 was $4,726 as compared with $3,898 for the full year period to the end of the last fiscal year. I could go on and give some figures with respect to the provinces to which my hon. friend has referred.


James Alexander Smith: Would the parliamentary assistant mind giving us now the number of loans which were granted under first mortgages and second mortgages for the four provinces I mentioned, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.


William Moore Benidickson: As my hon. friend will recall, in the amendments of last year we abandoned the second mortgage procedure, but I can give figures. For British Columbia for the current 10-month period the figure is 92 compared with 87 for the full year and the loans $497,250 for the 10-month period as compared with $389,000 for the full year; with respect to Alberta the increase is more important, 555 loans for the 10-month period as compared with 296 for the full year, the value of the loans approved being $2,241,000 as against $1,014,000; Saskatchewan, for the 10-month period, 833 compared with 652 for the full year period, the loan approved values being $3,849,000 and $2,618,000 respectively; Manitoba, 282 loans with a lending value of $1,329,000 for the 10-month period as compared with 226 loans for the full year valued at $932,000.
While I am on my feet the hon. member for Assiniboia and I had a discussion last night which appears at page 1540 of yesterday's Hansard, and I promised to recheck certain information that was sent to me by an assistant at my request while I was sitting in my seat. This information referred to a comparison of the percentage of loans that are given by the central mortgage and housing corporation as compared with loans from the farm loan board. I confess that my figures were in the wrong order. The 90 per cent of the loan applies to the first portion of the loan and the 70 per cent to the latter portion of the loan. I did, however, point out there were quite a number of features that made close comparison of these two types of loans impossible. I think that one is the very fact that all loans under the National Housing Act in recent years have


been insured, and in addition to that the rate of interest is more favourable under the farm loan board. Then, of course, the maximum amount of loan is greater under the farm loan board act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is just one point that I should like the parliamentary assistant to clear up and that is the definition under agricultural production value. The hon. member who spoke a moment ago spoke of the valuation of the farm.
We have rather a peculiar situation in the maritime provinces. Many of our farms have what is known as a wood lot or a lumber lot. Perhaps this matter has been brought to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. The lumber lot is considered by the farmer to be perhaps one of the most important assets of his farm. My understanding is that, under the interpretation of the agricultural productive value, that wood lot is not taken into consideration as far as the land is concerned. The result is that many farmers do feel that they are entitled to a loan because they have the value in the farm in- the form of their wood lot, their land under cultivation and their buildings, but yet they are being turned down. Can that interpretation be relaxed so as to give more consideration to these farmers?
In the Gordon report this matter of farms in New Brunswick and in other parts of eastern Canada has been considered very carefully. According to the report there are in New Brunswick many farms which rely to a great extent on this lumber land. I may say that the lumber on this land is not all stripped or cut in one year. Many of the farmers are now cutting what they consider the annual growth in perhaps two or three years' time. It really is a productive crop on the farm.
The Gordon report also stated that there are many farms that should be allowed to grow up in lumber again. It is a very valuable asset and perhaps there are other lands such as marshlands in other sections which should be considered for more cultivation. This matter is to be investigated and studied, I believe, by a committee appointed in the Senate, headed by our good friend Senator Power. May I say my personal opinion is that they could not have chosen a better man than Senator Power to head this committee.
There is another point that was brought up the other day, and it has reference to the returned man not receiving as much consideration as perhaps he should. I know of many cases of returned men who, if they go out and work at some other job and have their farms looked after perhaps by hired men, or some of their families, are prejudiced in their applications for loans. Many of them

are having quite a difficult time and they find it necessary to supplement their incomes by doing other work. I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant comment on these two points, which I know are important and of concern to the people affected.
Mention was made of the number of applications from the different provinces. I know from the last report of the Canadian farm loan board that there were 25, I think, from my own province which is a very small number. If the regulations were relaxed I think we would find there would be more applications, and I feel that much more assistance could be given to the farmers in my area. They can give good security in the form of their lumber lots, and they certainly need the money.


William Moore Benidickson: There were 40 loans last year in New Brunswick.
Last evening I did explain the opportunity to have seasonal or part-time earnings. With respect to the other point, I will advance the hon. member's remarks about the income from wood lots as something that should be taken into consideration as income-bearing and better enabling a man to pay up his loan.


Mr. Cardiff:: Will the minister take into consideration the remarks I made the other day about having some other parties called in to make valuations? I know it may be said that the owner may value his farm too high as the evaluator may value it too low. In a case of that kind, because of the fact that some of these men are in the position where they need the loan very badly, a third person could be called in. I know what they do. In my own case, if I make representations for them the board will send a second evaluator. That does not work out because again you have only the one man's opinion alone. If two or three were there it would not cost a great amount of money, and it would be of great advantage to some of these fellows who need the money very badly.


William Moore Benidickson: I recall my hon. friend's
interesting suggestion. I again reported last night that a change had been made in this matter of appraising. I think this question of appraising got more attention during the Banking and Commerce committee hearings last year than anything else. I have reported that a new chief appraiser had been appointed and, of course, any criticism as to the local evaluator's assessment would be reviewed by him. In addition' to that, it is expected that as a result of this appointment we shall not have the same chance of criticism that values lack uniformity and co-ordination across the country as a whole.


Mr. Zaplilny:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the parliamentary assistant will, in
Canadian Farm Loan Act addition to the figures he gave a few moments ago showing the comparable figures for the 10-months period of the past year as compared with the year before with regard to the number of applications and the total amount of loans, give a comparable figure for the number of applications received during the same two periods? I think it would make the picture much clearer and put it into perspective, because all we have now is the number of applications approved, which in every case shows an increase, and in some cases a substantial increase; but unless we have the number of applications received in relation to that we do not know whether there has actually been an improvement or not.


William Moore Benidickson: I have not those figures. One or two other members said there were some questions on the order paper relating to that very matter. It happens that the board functions through nine branches in the provinces and this information is at the branch level and has to be obtained there after careful search of correspondence.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would assume that the
information the parliamentary assistant just gave would come from exactly the same source, would it not?


William Moore Benidickson: No; I referred to loans
approved and all loans are approved at head office level and it is a statistic more readily obtained at head office.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If I may follow that up
with another question, Mr. Chairman, last evening and again today the parliamentary assistant mentioned the appointment of an appraiser as one of the examples of the liberalization of the act, or the procedure under the act. I am rather curious about that because I am wondering what effect this appointment may have. Does it mean that only one appraiser has been appointed to act as a sort of chief appraiser for the board in co-operation with the local appraisers? If so, what procedure has been evolved for the synchronization of values? On the face of it, I fail to see where the appointment of one appraiser for operations in nine provinces, or perhaps even 10 provinces, could have any material effect on synchronizing the approval of values unless there was something done to follow that up, unless the appraisers on the local level were called into regional conferences or schools, or some other agreed-upon method was laid out. I would like to get some clarification on that point from the hon. member.
While I am waiting for that I wish to mention this, too. I think it would be wise wherever possible to make greater use of

Canadian Farm Loan Act the assessors that are present in every rural municipality, I suppose across the country. Particularly in the prairie provinces, the assessors that are appointed by rural municipalities are usually men of fairly high qualification who know their jobs and who go out and make a detailed appraisal from farm to farm. They know the quality of the soil, the condition of the buildings and the general capacity of the land to produce and so forth in order to arrive at their assessment. All that data is available on the record and it should be put to use.
This could be done in two ways. One way I would suggest is that wherever possible a municipal assessor be appointed the local appraiser. I have found that for one reason or another that is not done in our part of the country at least and I have also found that appraisers have been appointed who have had no previous contact with that kind of work whereas many of the municipal assessors who are on a part time basis in my opinion would be excellent for the job. Secondly, during the winter months, as the parliamentary assistant would appreciate there is a hold-up in connection with applications owing to the fact that the land is covered with snow and road conditions are bad. It so happens that in many cases, in Manitoba at least, farmers who intend to apply for a loan make up their minds about it in the fall for reasons I do not need to enumerate. It is fairly obvious that the autumn is the time of year when they are usually more familiar with their financial position than they are at any other time. In most cases the farmers are asked to wait until spring to have an appraisal made. Since most of the necessary information with regard to individual farms has been compiled in the books of the assessor at the municipal office it would seem to me that in most cases all that the local appraiser would need to do would be to walk over to the assessor's office and sit down with him and examine the books. Although he could not make a physical appraisal he could obtain excellent information from the man who is most familiar with the individual farms. In my opinion this would go a long way toward avoiding the lengthy delays which are so irritating to the individual applicant whose plans in connection with the loan are held up for two or three months or even longer waiting until spring when the appraisal is made.
I hope the parliamentary assistant will give consideration to these matters because I think they are practical suggestions which will help the board to do the kind of job it is expected to do. The chief criticism as far as I am aware has been the long delays
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
and the fact that the farmer who applies in the fall at the time of year when he is endeavouring to make plans for his spring operations is frequently left until late in the spring waiting for a decision concerning the loan and often it arrives too late for his purposes so he simply drops his application.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am able to report several developments which I think would give my hon. friend some satisfaction. There has been recently held a meeting of branch managers who had not met centrally for some time. I mentioned the appointment of a chief appraiser who will be a specialist and recalling the criticism of the agricultural committee as to the lack of uniformity in certain instances that will be very much on his mind. Since his appointment the appraiser is establishing appraisal schools at each of the branches and that I think should result in satisfaction to some of the critics.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman I, too, am pleased that an appraiser has been obtained by the board. There was a great deal of resistance in the committee last year to any suggestion that the type of personnel acting as appraisers could be improved. As a matter of fact I remember that in reply to one question it was said the people who were doing the appraising at that time were considered by the board far better authorities than some of the excellent and competent men to whom some of us were referring in our discussion.
This particular measure is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance. It seems to me that if you are going to have an agricultural credit policy that works effectively, if you are going to have a Canadian farm loan board that truly meets the needs of agriculture, you are far more apt to have a successful operation if the jurisdiction were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. I really cannot understand why it is kept under the Department of Finance when the board deals exclusively with agriculture and when the objective of the program should be other than making a profit. Certainly the same criteria that are used in judging whether or not other aspects of the Department of Finance are successful are not appropriate when it comes to judging the success of the Canadian farm loan board.
I wish to express my agreement with most of the suggestions that were made by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose concerning what improvements could be made. These have already been placed on the record a number of times and they include increasing the maximum amount of the loans to

$20,000, increasing to 90 per cent the percentage of appraised value on which a loan can be made, an extension of the loan period from the current maximum of 30 years to a maximum of 40 years and a general liberalization of the attitude and policies of the board in dealing with applications.
Last evening the parliamentary assistant placed on the record a great deal of valuable information concerning the operations of the board so far this year. In this respect I agree with the parliamentary assistant rather than the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose because I believe that within a ten-month period the board has made a highly commendable improvement in its operations. Both the number of loans and the total value of the loans for all of Canada have increased by approximately 50 per cent. In view of the fact that the parliamentary assistant appears to have a great deal of information concerning the operations of the board so far this year I am wondering if he is now in a position to say whether or not the board is likely to make a profit on its operations during the current fiscal year that will end in about one month's time. In other words has the inevitable increase in the cost of doing business, salaries, rentals and travelling expenses and so forth been such that the normal profit of the board is likely to be decreased or is it likely there will be a substantial net profit on March 31?


William Moore Benidickson: Well, Mr. Chairman, my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia makes the assertion that it appears to be the objective of the board to make money-


Hazen Robert Argue: It is one of the objectives.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, it is not an objective but the board is required to operate without a loss; that is the tenor of the statute and its charges are contemplated on the basis that it will operate without a subsidy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Have you read the appropriate section of the act?


William Moore Benidickson: I think the definition
would indicate quite clearly what the intentions are. Section 7 (e) reads:
(e) the interest rate on loans shall be a rate that, in the opinion of the board, is sufficient to provide for the interest payable by the board to the minister and the expenses of the board, including a reasonable provision for reserves against losses.
I indicated last night that for its last borrowing from the Minister of Finance the board had to pay the going rate of interest of 4 per cent. Fortunately a great deal of the former borrowings by the board from the Minister of Finance are still outstanding at rates considerably less than that. In addition,
Canadian Farm Loan Act the board has been provided with a capital of $3 million and that capital has never returned a dividend. If my hon. friend will look at the annual report for last year he will see set out the net profits for the years ending in 1956 and 1955 which indicate that the board has been just about breaking even. The profit for the year ended March 31, 1956 was $173,175 after paying income tax of $45,000. As I say, no dividend whatsoever has been returned on this capital of $3 million.
I do not know of any business institution that would operate as closely as that. Here is a board which has obligations of some $45 million and loans of some $43 million and yet it makes a profit of only $173,175. I do not think it can be asserted that this board has as one of its objectives the making of money, but parliament never expected that this board would be subsidized by the taxpayers.
When the board was set up in 1929 the intention was not to provide all the farm credit required in Canada. It was intended that it should be a competitive operation carrying out a recommendation by a royal commission which pointed regrettably to what up to that time had been the very high interest rates charged generally for farm mortgages. The commission reported that up to that time interest rates generally were between 7 per cent and 12 per cent. The new board set an interest rate of 6 per cent which provided competition and some of the private lending companies in turn reduced their rates.
In addition the board provides loans to farmers in all types of years. It has not particularly reduced its lending in times of poorer economic conditions as is sometimes the practice of financial institutions. However, it was not intended that all farm borrowings would come from one source. As a matter of fact, as was mentioned last night, several of the provinces have their own farm credit organizations. Despite what hon. members from Ontario said yesterday, there was never any reference to the parallel lending organization in that province. This junior farm loan board is a fine organization operated by that province for young farmers.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I think it
should be said that not all these farm appraisers are inefficient; it is not fair for that statement to go across the country. I know one who is not inefficient. He is a successful farmer and he knows the farms in the community; he knows their values and he knows the farmers, whether or not they are trustworthy. There is a first class appraiser in Fort William district.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that the Ontario board is a junior farm improvement board with an

Canadian Farm Loan Act age limit of 35 years. When a man is beyond that age he must come to the federal board for money.


William Moore Benidickson: That is true, but in every speech made by Ontario members the emphasis was upon the young farmer and the young veteran. I am pointing out that there is a special agency in Ontario for junior farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the emphasis placed by the parliamentary assistant upon the requirement that the board conduct its operations, including the rate on loans that it charges, in such a way as to make certain there is no loss suggests to me the great danger there is that within a relatively short time the board may in fact be forced to raise its interest rates to applicants. The information given to the committee last year in connection with the board's operations in 1955 showed that the cost of operating amounted to 1.39 per cent of the money acquired. Last night the parliamentary assistant gave us the disturbing information that the cost of money to the board from the government had gone up to 4 per cent. If my memory serves me correctly, a year ago that cost was around 3J per cent to 3J per cent. If you add to the 4 per cent the cost of operation on the basis of the 1955 cost you arrive at a figure in excess of 5 per cent.
I realize that there are other factors to be considered, mainly that a great part of the money the board has used was obtained at different rates, probably in all instances at lower rates, but nevertheless the increasing cost of money to the board along with the policy of the government of allowing interest rates to go up will in my opinion endanger the operations of this board at 5 per cent. I believe that this is an exceedingly important matter. It was stressed repeatedly before the committee last year, namely that the cost of money to the board and to farm operators should be decreased. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture placed on the record a year ago figures suggesting the great advantages that would flow from an interest rate to farmers of 3J per cent.
No one should believe that the agricultural industry on the basis of historic records can afford to pay a 5 per cent interest rate. It seems to me that the whole trend of the government's tight money policy is to saddle on the people of this country who can ill afford to pay it a burdensome and discriminatory interest charge. I notice that another resolution is to be introduced to provide loans to certain producers on the security of grain. Previously this legislation contained provision for a statutory rate of 5 per cent, but apparently now the rate is to be left wide open at the discretion of the governor in

council. That suggests just one thing to me, that the government is paving the way for a further hike in interest rates to producers by these measures.
I believe the country should know at this time what is the intention of the government with respect to interest rates to be charged by this board. I submit we should be given some assurance that at least within the next twelve-month period the rate now charged by the board will be held. Last night the parliamentary assistant said he did not have his crystal ball with him, but I think the public are entitled to know whether or not this rate will be held for a further twelvemonth period. I think the parliamentary assistant should give the committee further information as to how the recent increases in the cost of money to the board are affecting the board's over-all costs. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant specifically to what extent the new 4 per cent rate has increased the over-all cost of money to the board and to what extent such a rate is reducing the potential profit of the board.


Mr. Lesage:: Before the parliamentary assistant replies, may I ask the hon. member if the demand he makes for this assurance is based on the assumption on his part that the present government will still be on this side of the house 12 months from now?


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, not at all.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: But I would not go so far as to forecast that any change that might take place in the government would necessarily result in improvement as far as this legislation is concerned. I think that parliament itself should at this time deal with the question of interest rates that are charged by the board, and I suggest to the minister who has asked me a question that he discuss with his cabinet colleagues the possibility of bringing in an amendment to the legislation which will make the interest rate statutory so as to remove from the Minister of Finance the great temptation that will face him to increase the rate to the board and consequently cause an increase in the rate to the producers.
I repeat my question to the parliamentary assistant. To what extent are the current very high interest rates charged by the department to the board affecting the board's costs of operation?


William Moore Benidickson: I do not have exact figures as to the borrowings within recent months at the rate that I quoted. I simply know it is the current rate and some lending has been done at that rate. I do not propose to get into a discussion on a measure of

this kind about the merits of high or low interest rates under our competitive system of seeking loans from the money markets or through the banking system or otherwise. I point out to my hon. friend that the Minister of Finance, on the basis, of course, of the cost of money to him, sets a rate to the board and the rate is very similar. However, the interest rate on loans to farmers is not set by the Minister of Finance. The interest rate on loans is set by the board.


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely the cost of money to the board is a very important part of the board's costs and has a very great bearing on the interest rate that the board itself must charge. Surely the parliamentary assistant can give us some indication of what part of the over-all costs is represented by the interest rates that are charged by the government.
The parliamentary assistant has referred to the continuing alibi of the government about the money market and has indicated that the government has abandoned the whole theory of Keynesian economics that the government itself is able by various policies to influence the rate of interest. Apparently the Minister of Finance is following a policy of folding his arms as far as money matters and interest rates are concerned and letting the money market run up the interest rate as high as it can, no matter what the consequences to the ordinary individual.
Any increase in the interest rates charged by the Canadian farm loan board will go a long way to destroy the present great usefulness of the board in this field. With the worsening general agricultural conditions throughout the nation over the last ten years, the trend of interest rates for farm credit should not be up but down. I think it is time that the government reversed its whole interest policy from one of high interest rates that are scalping ordinary borrowers and have no adverse effect at all upon the wealthy and the great corporations.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Lethbridge.


Mr. Reinke:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understand the hon. member for Hamilton South wishes to ask a question.


Russell Earl Reinke: If I recall correctly, it was some time in January of last year that the hon. member who has just spoken made reference to the fact that a 5J per cent rate under the National Housing Act was a fair interest rate. If it is a fair interest rate to persons who borrow money for housing purposes, why then is the hon. member so upset
Canadian Farm Loan Act about an interest rate for farmers which is quite comparable to the rate that he said was very fair and equitable?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would say they are two different categories altogether. The people who borrow money under the National Housing Act and pay a rate of 5| per cent are people who are engaged in all occupations. While the position of the ordinary working people has varied a good deal and while there is great inequality among people working in various industries, nevertheless over the years their general position has shown some improvement. As far as they are concerned, housing loans are, of course, consumer loans. They are loans for the building of homes which are consumption loans.
On the other hand, the farmer has not shared in the general increase in wealth production. While most other people have been getting more money his net income has been going down and the very rapid fall in farm income is one reason why the farmer cannot afford to pay 5J per cent. If the hon. member will study the history of agriculture in Canada he will find that over the years the total net return on investment in farm lands and property has been 2 per cent. Those are the facts. On a historical return of 2 per cent I would ask the hon. member how it is possible for agriculture generally to afford 5J per cent, as the hon. member would seem to indicate.


Russell Earl Reinke: In other words, the hon. member is suggesting that the farmers should have more consideration than anyone else in this country. They are in a class all by themselves.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, not at all. If there was no interest charge at all on farm loans for the purchase of property or the transfer of property from a father to a son the position of the agricultural industry would still be very inferior.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, I have not participated in this discussion thus far because I felt it was being carried on very ably by the other members of our group who are members of our committee on agriculture, namely the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose.
I am quite proud of their accomplishment.
But I now feel that it would be in order to make one or two observations. In the first place, I do not grant that money lent for house building should be at a rate of 5 Jr per cent. I think it is practically a monstrosity that an interest rate of 5J per cent should be charged for money going into any productive enterprise in Canada at the present time.

Canadian Farm Loan Act
One of the main things which it seems the minister and the parliamentary assistant, who perhaps is bound hand and foot, overlook is the fact that money can be created in Canada today and is created by the Bank of Canada. It is not capital in the sense that money was capital 50 years ago when all the money that was available for use was money which had been earned by people and taken from them by taxation. Can we not by any conceivable means get it into the mentalities of the members of this house that the fact that the parliament of Canada through the Bank of Canada can create money without cost should enter into our whole attitude to all these questions?
In respect of the advance in the interest rate on money made available by the government to the farm loan board, I say it is simply an outrage that the government should increase the rate of interst the farm loan board has to pay on the money it uses, when you consider that that money could be made available by the Bank of Canada at not more than 2J per cent.
Even Bruce Hutchison knows today that our money can be created. In an article in Maclean's magazine of March 2 he shows a considerable amount of intelligence and enlightenment on that matter. Surely that knowledge should be able to get to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
What I have said about the creation of money has a bearing on a great many things, but my particular object in rising to speak today is to comment on the need for large loans from this Canadian farm loan board and for loans for very long terms such as 40 years or the like at a low interest rate. All other of those matters no doubt were dealt with by both the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose but it will do no harm to repeat this important comment.
Why is it at the present time so important that farm loans should be long term, very large and at low rates of interest? There are several things which we, as members of parliament, are likely to fail to take cognizance of. The first one of those things is that in order to compete successfully today a farmer must have high-class machinery, and in grain farming high-class machinery is excessively costly. There are a great many different kinds of machines which the farmer must have every year. Much of that machinery is not in use any more than probably two months a year or even less. Consequently there is a heavy overhead on this machinery. At the present time under competitive conditions the farmer is helpless
[Mr. Blackmore.l
to do anything about the matter. He simply must have the machinery or he cannot possibly compete.
This is a condition which has arisen among us within the last 40 years; those of us who have derived our monetary ideas from those who lived 50 years ago are likely to be completely outdated.
Because of the great number of machines which are necessary today, the farmer is forced on a cash basis much more than ever before. In the days when men turned their horses, their then source of power, out to grass on the pastures and turned the grass into the equivalent of gasoline to run the machines, the situation was far different from that which obtains today when the farmer must pay hard money for every gallon of gasoline which he must have for every bit of travelling that he does and with which to do every bit of work he does on the farm with every machine that he runs. This puts our farmer in a condition unique in history, Mr. Chairman. Never in all the annals of mankind has a condition of that sort previously prevailed.
There is another aspect of this question also. Even when I was a small boy, if a machine broke down we were generally sufficiently skilled in mechanics to mend the ordinary machine we used such as a disc harrow, an ordinary harrow, a walking plow, double trees, chains and all that sort of thing. But let anything happen to any part of a machine which the farmer is running today, and what is the situation? Can he repair it? Even if he is a most skilful mechanic and is equipped with the finest kind of machinery, in most cases he is unable to repair that machine. That means that he has dollars to lay out immediately. Once more he is on a cash basis.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: Not for a little while. Another aspect of the question is that in order to make this expensive machinery pay, such as a $5,000 tractor, a farmer must have large holdings. On several occasions already it has been brought to the attention of the house that he must have at least a section of ground in heavy land and perhaps two sections of ground in light land. Land costs money and a great deal of it. On that amount of land the taxes are heavy, and the taxes are demanded of the farmer. Once more he is on a cash basis and he must have large amounts of money in order to negotiate as regards that land.
Because of the heavy capital investment the farmer has and because of the peculiar conditions which face him, he must have an opportunity to sell his product immediately

and get cash for it. There is no need of burdening any hon. member in this committee by repeating the difficulties our wheat farmers are experiencing by reason of the fact that they are unable to sell their grain immediately and get cash for it so that they can go out and pay their bills. Some may ask what connection that matter has with the points that I am discussing. It has a good deal of effect on the general situation.
Another aspect is the fact that it is extremely difficult for a man now running a farm of one section or of two sections to have a herd of hogs and feed them, a number of cows and milk them or a flock of chickens and take care of them. In other words, it is almost impossible for him to go into mixed farming which used to be the secret of subsistence farming from 60 years ago back. But today he is unable to put his eggs in more than about one basket. That fact again has an important bearing on this matter that we are discussing.
There is another important matter which is facing farming people everywhere. Men who have devoted their lives to the building up of a farm holding, when they reach the age of 70 years or probably 65 years, find that they have faced the weather and have put up with the roughness of life as long as they are able to do so. Hence they need to be able to turn their holdings over to the boy and the boy must have money. The father needs to be able to sell the land in his holding for probably $40,000 or $50,000, perhaps in order to discharge other obligations which he has. How is he going to be able to sell that land to his son? How is the son going to be able to take over the land unless there are available, facilities by means of which this boy can obtain the money which is necessary to pay his father and to put himself in a position to carry on and his father in a position to retire? This again demands large loans at small rates of interest over long periods of time. Why a long period of time? Because if you take into consideration the operations of the average farmer over a number of years, you will find that his losses in one year will have been such that it will take him four or five years to recoup them Over a long period of say 20 years, 30 years or 40 years, he is exceedingly fortunate if he keeps his head above water at all on a farm.
I speak as one who was born on a farm and raised on a farm and has been watching farming operations going on for all the years of his life. This is another matter which has a bearing.
I notice that the parliamentary assistant every once in a while talks about the cost of capital and that he acts as though there is
Canadian Farm Loan Act no other way whereby he can get money except by taking it out of the money market or taking it out of the taxes or the revenue fund of the country. His attitude there is absolutely fallacious and I will challenge him to prove in what respect it is not.
Now, if he wants to have others participating in the provision of the agricultural loans, like mortgage companies and so on, that is one matter; but we are not running our farm economy in order to give business to the mortgage companies. If we are, then we are running our economy straight into ruin ultimately. If we cannot begin to think in terms of obtaining money from the Bank of Canada at not more than 2.5 per cent interest, money which does not necessarily have to be paid back to the Bank of Canada within 15 or 20 years: if we cannot start thinking in terms of a monetary situation based on that state of affairs, then we are utterly inadequate in our generation to do the kind of thinking which needs to be done in dealing with the problems of our farmers in relation to the farm loan board.


Mr. MacLean:: I just want to i*iake a few brief remarks, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased when the parliamentary assistant pointed out that one of the greatest advantages of this legislation has been the fact that it has, in the past at least, tended to keep interest rates within reason. I know of some cases in my province where farmers have taken out mortgages and paid perhaps 7 per cent interest for more than 25 years, yet still had the total principal outstanding. If they had been in a position to borrow the money through the Canadian farm loan board at the rate of interest then prevailing they would have been able to pay off both the interest and the principal over that period by having an annual charge only one-tenth of 1 per cent greater than the 7 per cent. In that way, this legislation would serve a very useful purpose.
There is one thing that I suspect, although I could not find figures to prove it, and that is that applications for loans from the farm loan board increase when farm net income is low. In other words, I suspect the farmers are resorting to this as a means of tiding them over tough financial conditions. Perhaps the board is serving a useful purpose in that respect, but I should like to think of the agriculture industry being in a position where farmers had sufficient confidence they would borrow money from the loan board to increase their holdings, modernize their equipment, improve their buildings and that sort of thing. I am afraid that is true only in a relatively small percentage of cases.

Canadian Farm Loan Act
This legislation has been used to a great extent in my province, and I think the people administering it are to be congratulated on the work they have done. However, there is one difficulty so far as farmers are concerned, and that is the time lapse which occurs on some occasions in having their holdings appraised after making application for a loan. I was wondering if it would be possible to expedite the appraisal of land by employing more part-time appraisers. It is essential, of course, that interest rates be kept low, at least as low as they are at the present time. The federation of agriculture feels that they are already too high and, as has been pointed out, there has been some indication they might go higher. This would be unfortunate indeed.
In a statement to the federal-provincial agriculture conference in Ottawa in December 1956, the federation of agriculture had this to say. I know the parliamentary assistant is familiar with this, but I think it bears repetition.
Though both the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act and Farm Improvement Loan Act were amended at the last sess*m of parliament considerable further improvement is possible. The Canadian farm loan board in particular is not providing a satisfactory answer to the long-term credit problems of the Canadian farmer. Interest rates should be lower, the loan limits on appraised value should be raised and appraisals should be less conservative. In addition, there should be a first-class supervisory service available to farmers who obtain these loans, particularly loans up to $10,000.
Those are sentiments with which I agree because agriculture, unlike almost any other industry in this country, is not sharing in the prosperity of the country and is not receiving inflated prices for farm products. Farmers are paying inflated prices for what they have to buy and therefore the farmer is caught in a cost-price squeeze. I should like to reiterate the importance of keeping interest charges low if farmers are going to be able to carry on at all and obtain the sort of capital necessary to run a farm today.
I have a question I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant. I notice that in the annual report there are no figures given for Newfoundland. Of course, I know there is no local office in Newfoundland, but I believe that, theoretically at least, the board does business in Newfoundland. I should like to know what the position is with regard to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can say whether the membership of the Canadian farm loan board is still the same as is set out in the latest report we have, the one for the year ending March 31, 1956. There are five names listed, Mr. Chester, Mr. Bertrand, Mr. Taylor, Mr. 
Beaulieu, and Mr. Darroch. Are those five still members of the board?


William Moore Benidickson: I am fairly certain that they are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant is aware of the fact, apart from the political past of Mr. Chester and Mr. Bertrand, that Mr. Darroch, who is a former member of this house, has recently been nominated as a Liberal candidate in the forthcoming federal election. Has he resigned from the board consequent upon accepting that nomination?


William Moore Benidickson: Not to my knowledge; I do not know he was a candidate.


Mr. Hansell:: I only rise to ask the parliamentary assistant a question. In the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Lethbridge, he urged that there should be no reason why the Canadian farm loan board, as a branch of government, should not be in a position to borrow money from the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada is a government owned institution. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a simple direct question. Why is it that the Canadian farm loan board, as a branch of government, must go outside the government owned Bank of Canada to borrow these moneys?


William Moore Benidickson: When we do get out of
order in the discussion of a matter, as I am afraid we are doing here because this is a very simple bill and deals only with a proposal to increase the capital, invariably we stray farther and farther away from the point. Then, we get questions of this kind with respect to any institution of the government that may be borrowing money. I certainly do not propose to get into that kind of debate on the type of bill we have before us.


Ernest George Hansell: Of course, it is one o'clock, but that is just the kind of answer that I expected.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Alpheus Charlton: Just previous to the one
o'clock recess, I understand, a question was asked about a member of the board, since nominated as a candidate in the forthcoming election, and it was suggested that he is still a member of the board. That was my understanding. Is that correct?


William Moore Benidickson: Somebody made that
assertion. I said it was not information I had.


John Alpheus Charlton: The parliamentary assistant answered that as far as he knew the same five were still members of the board. Is it ordinary government procedure that a member can retain a government position and go on campaigning while being paid by this government?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend knows
that the pay is very inconsequential. I think they are simply paid travelling expenses for two or three meetings of the board during the course of the year. I think that is the extent of the remuneration.


John Alpheus Charlton: I rather question that. As I recall it, when it was before the committee last year we were given information that the salaries of the board amounted to $75,000.


William Moore Benidickson: The chairman and the vice-chairman are paid salaries because they are required to be at the head office of the board here in Ottawa on a full-time basis; but, according to my recollection of the evidence before the committee, the other three members of the board are simply paid travelling expenses for attendance.


John Alpheus Charlton: At page 7 of the last report, under the heading of expenses, we find "salaries, including $24,190 for executive officers, $462,057; board members' remuneration and travel expenses, $8,641." What is the actual salary of a member of the board, not the chairman or the vice-chairman?


William Moore Benidickson: I do not remember the evidence of the committee of last year and I have not it at hand. I shall be glad to see that it is given to the committee when the bill is discussed.


Howard Charles Green: It does seem to me that this brings up a question that should be dealt with a little more fully by the parliamentary assistant. We were told before the noon recess that one of the members of this board has been nominated as a government candidate in the forthcoming election. I may be wrong in some of my facts; if so, I hope the parliamentary assistant will correct me. I understand that Mr. Darroch is the one involved here. He was a member from 1949 to 1953, as we all know, but was defeated in 1953 and apparently was given a job on this board. Last December he was nominated as a Liberal candidate. No one can have any objection to his deciding to attempt to go into public life again; but surely it is wrong for him, once he has been nominated to contest a seat for the government party, or for that matter for any other party, to continue as a member of the board. He should resign from the board. I would like to have a further explanation from the parliamentary
Canadian Farm Loan Act assistant as to how such action can be justified. If it is proper in this case, then where is the line to be drawn? Apparently he is not a full-time member of the board, but he is a member drawing some government funds for his work as a member of the Canadian farm loan board. Obviously, he must be carrying on government business in that capacity and I suggest that under those conditions the proper thing would be for a person who is a party candidate to resign his position on the board. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether this is the regular practice, whether it is considered proper for a member of one of these government boards to accept a nomination and obviously be carrying on an active political campaign without resigning from the board?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend I think said that he did not know whether he was speaking of a fact or not and I said I did not know. I shall be very glad to look into the question and report later on the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Does the parliamentary
assistant know of any other case where this is being done? I mean, is it recognized by the government as a proper course of action to follow?


William Moore Benidickson: I think my hon. friend used the words, "was this a regular practice?"
I know of no other situation that would be similar and I do not know that the facts as suggested are true. I say, in the course of the period between now and the time of the bill I shall make inquiries, inform myself and inform the committee.


Mr. Bryson:: I was particularly interested this morning when the parliamentary assistant made mention of the fact that schools are being set up throughout the country where appraisers can meet and discuss common problems. I was also interested to note that he placed on the record the number of loans that had been made in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. While he did not give figures for the province of Manitoba, it is conceivable that possibly more loans had been made in the province of Saskatchewan than in the other three combined in the past 10-months period. Irrespective of that, it is very important, from the point of view of Saskatchewan, that the time that elapses from the date of appraisal until the loan is processed be made as short as possible.
I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether the appraisers who are going to meet to discuss their problems are going to take into consideration, and are going to use as a basis for their appraisal work, the very comprehensive soil maps

Exchequer Court Act
which are available in the province of Saskatchewan because, as he can appreciate, the time set aside for appraisals to be made, which I believe is from May to November, is rather short; also, he can appreciate the fact that land changes hands on the prairies to a great extent in the fall of the year. Therefore, if the ground is frozen or covered with snow appraisals cannot be made.
As I pointed out yesterday, it is very important to small holders who are trying to expand their operations to become more efficient, who have little or no other recourse but to go to the Canadian farm loan as a source of credit. Therefore, if they are going to compete with the large land owners who are looking for extra acreage, then it is very important that these loans be processed as quickly as possible in order to give small operators a chance to compete with those other people who are in the market for land.
Would the parliamentary assistant care to comment on that?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend says, this matter of the soil maps was considered very carefully by the committee last year. I think too that Dr. Hope of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had some favourable comment to make with respect to them. I have no doubt that that as well as all the other matters dealt with by the committee last year will be among things to which this new officer and the board will be giving consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the parliamentary
assistant would know whether or not any appraisals are made during the winter months. We had some discussion on this last year.


William Moore Benidickson: Generally, I think not.
I was reading yesterday the application forms and the general brochure of instructions respecting the junior farmer's loan board of Ontario and I find that they have a similar provision.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. McCann (for Mr. Harris) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 159, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Exchequer Court Act respecting the place of residence and the salary of the registrar of the court.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister please explain?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the bill is such a simple one I did not think I could add anything to the explanatory footnote without offending the intelligence of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, perhaps the minister
could tell us what is the change regarding the residence of the registrar and whether any change is proposed with regard to the office of the registrar. Perhaps he could also tell us what change is being made in the salary. To be informed of these items would not insult our intelligence, you know.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member will recall that we put through a similar amendment to the Supreme Court Act in relation to the registrar of the Supreme Court. The purpose here is merely to take the statutory maximum from the gentleman's salary so that he can receive increases in his salary which are commensurate with those enjoyed by other members of the civil service. And then in relation to his residence, instead of having to reside within the boundaries of the city of Ottawa the registrar has the additional liberty of being able to make his home within a radius of five miles of the city of Ottawa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As it was, the latitude
was quite wide.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to his residence?
You mean that Ottawa is a large city?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But I would hate to think
that in order for a man to be registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada it would be necessary and essential that he should live within the city of Ottawa and not be able to live half a mile or five miles out.


An hon. Member:: In Rockcliffe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No change is being made
in the section referring to the location of his office?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that remains the same.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 160, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Northern Affairs and National Resources



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 8, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act to provide for the establishment of two national museums in lieu of one, as at the present time, to be known as the Canadian museum of natural history and the Canadian museum of human history.
Mr. Lusby:: Mr. Chairman, in the few
moments I had before five o'clock on February 8 when this resolution was introduced I stated that I approved of the proposal embodied in this resolution and that the division of the national museum into two separate branches, a museum of natural history and a museum of human history, would in my opinion facilitate desirable expansion and development in each branch. I did not intend to suggest by that, of course, that we should aim at rivalling forthwith the British museum, shall I say; but certainly the growth and expansion of our national museum should keep pace with the rapid growth and development of our country. In my opinion the present measure represents a useful means towards this end and the possibilities are as yet hardly touched upon.
On the various occasions on which I have visited the national museum in Ottawa I have always taken a great deal of interest in the different exhibits. However, I am always particularly glad to note that in addition to exhibits of various minerals, some of which come from the Minas basin shore of my constituency, there is one exhibit there to which my own constituency can lay exclusive claim. That is the exhibit of petrified tree trunks and the other things which come from the Joggins area in my constituency. I dare say the Joggins exhibit is familiar to a good many hon. members of this house. I might point out that the Joggins area is one of the most interesting to geologists that can be found anywhere.
I think that an exhibit like this-and this is something to which I shall refer in a moment-may serve an extremely useful purpose here in Ottawa, where so many people from central Canada are in a position to enjoy the museum, in stimulating their interest in the particular area or region of the country from which the particular exhibit comes.
Concerning the field of human history in the present museum I always find the exhibits of the aboriginal inhabitants of this
country most interesting. Coming again to my own part of the country, I think it is well known that Nova Scotia presents one of the most fascinating stories of any province in Canada in the realm of human history. I think we all know that this applies to what we might call recorded or post-Columbian history and it also applies to unrecorded or pre-Columbian history.
There is a wealth of history concerning the natives who inhabited this country long before Columbus came to America. It is well known of course that a couple of centuries ago when England and France were struggling for the mastery of this continent the isthmus of Chignecto, which connects Nova Scotia with New Brunswick, was one of the most strategic points in the whole struggle.
In fact for many years it was known as the key to the continent. I may be out of order in saying this, but I suggest that the building of this canal across this isthmus would go a long way to solve many of the economic problems of the maritimes.
Long before Columbus the occupiers of what is now known as Nova Scotia were a tribe of Indians known as the Micmacs. I have often thought it most unfortunate that the present museum does not contain any individual record of those Indians. It may be that as they were part of the great Algonquin stock which occupied a great part of North America, and as there are Algonquin exhibits in the museum, this was not thought necessary but the fact is that the Micmacs possessed many unique customs and traditions. I submit that a record of their ways deserves a prominent place in our Canadian museum of human history.
When a separate museum of human history is set up in accordance with the principle of this resolution I do hope that the great Mic-mac tribe will have a place set aside in it in which to exhibit evidence of their ways and customs and beliefs. I am told for example that their tongue was among the most musical of all Indian languages, and in addition their religious beliefs and mythology were well advanced.
In this connection what is of particular interest to me is the legend of their semideity Glooscap. The centre of his activities and exploits was in Minas basin, which is an important part of my constituency, including the town of Parrsboro. I think it might be of interest to some hon. members, and certainly it will be of interest to the Minister of Fisheries whom I see in his seat, to know that Glooscap has recently been linked or an attempt has been made to link him with preColumbian European explorers.
It is generally regarded as an historical fact that the Norsemen coasted the shores of Nova
1572	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Affairs and National Resources Scotia a thousand years ago, but an eminent United States writer, by the name of Frederick Pohl, who has interested himself in this subject, asserts that an Earl of Orkney, who bore the great name of Sinclair-probably he was an ancestor of our Minister of Fisheries- crossed the Atlantic with a considerable fleet and a considerable number of retainers in the year 1398, nearly a century before Columbus sailed. He reached the shores of Nova Scotia and spent the winter on the shores of Minas basin, then sailed back home leaving behind a tradition of a God-like white man. I think the descendant of that man shows some of the same traits. In the intervening decades that fact was developed by the Micmacs into their legend of Glooscap. I am not saying that I accept that as a truth, but at least it is interesting.
I mention these things simply to show the interest there is in the history of the Micmac tribe. I believe their history, their customs and their beliefs should be given a prominent place in the proposed museum of human history. We might regard that as simply a tribute to a wronged and ruined race, but then it perhaps could be considered on a more practical ground. This same principle could be expanded in many other directions. I suggest that such an exhibit here in Ottawa would tend to greatly increase tourist interest in the region from which these Indians came, the region of their ancestral home.
As I say, this idea could be expanded into many other regions of the country. For that reason I would recommend that this matter be studied and in this new museum of human history particular attention be given to the Indians who years ago occupied the peninsula of Nova Scotia. We know that pictures from the national gallery are sometimes sent on tour around the country so that people in other sections may have an opportunity to see them. It occurs to me that it might be feasible to have certain exhibits from the national museum taken on tour to those areas of the country where they are of local interest.
For instance, if an exhibit of Micmac work were exhibited in the town of Parrsboro in my constituency I know there would be a tremendous number of people in that area who would visit it. Living in the area where the Micmacs flourished they would be particularly interested in that sort of thing. I think it would prove a valuable stimulus to the tourist trade in addition to the other attractions which the region presents of unrivalled beauty of sea and shore, the highest tides in the world, the most picturesque golf course in the world located at Parrsboro.
[Mr. Lusby.)


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, when the resolution was last under discussion I made a few brief remarks. Since that time I have spent several hours in the museum in order to adequately inform myself about the proposal of the minister. I have several comments I should like to make and suggestions I should like to offer resulting from those visits. First I should like to know what are the plans of the government in the development of this museum of human history and museum of natural history. It is apparent that if all aspects of human history which are available for discovery are put under one roof it will require a building as large as the Victoria museum, if not larger. Could the minister give some information as to whether he plans to incorporate some of the archives in the museum of human history? The war museum is related to human history although in a slightly different sense.


Jean Lesage: Those two matters are under study presently.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: No definite decision has been made? Is it the intention to move the national gallery from the Victoria museum and to use that museum exclusively for the museum of natural history and erect a separate building for the museum of human history?


Jean Lesage: It is expected that within two years the geological surveys branch and the national gallery will have left the Victoria museum. For some time the two museums will be housed in the same building, but planning is under way for a second building to house one of the museums. That is in the future. When the geological surveys branch and the national gallery leave the Victoria museum we will have an increase of two-thirds in the space and for some time after that it will be sufficient to house both museums. But the long-range planning is to have a separate building for each museum.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I am very pleased to hear that because I am certainly one of those who advocate that the maximum possible advantage be taken of research into what has taken place in the past and displaying the results of such research to the public.
That brings up another question, the function of the whole national museum. It is apparent to me that much of the time of the staff is involved in research, the discovery of historic sites and the interpretation of the evidence discovered. At the same time the museum has also served as a place to display such discoveries publicly. It seems to me

Northern Affairs and National Resources
there are two conflicting objectives because if you study projects and devote two-thirds of your staff and space to that work you will automatically limit the opportunity of displays for the benefit of the public.


Jean Lesage: Most of the studies are made outside the museum. They are made in the field so they do not take any space. As the hon. member knows, the space available in the present museum is very small and it has been impossible to do justice to the exhibits we have. We have been rotating them as much as we can but not to the extent that would provide a good showing of all the exhibits we have stored around Ottawa waiting for space in which they can be exhibited. As a matter of fact, I am in the process now of obtaining from my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, some space in another building near the museum in order to try to start the work immediately on the exhibits that we will be able to show in 1959 when we have the space available.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I am right in assuming from what the minister has said that the primary purpose of the museum is for public display.


Jean Lesage: The primary purpose of the museum is for public education through display and through publications, but in order to do that there must be some research done.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I can appreciate what the minister is saying but I am inclined to disagree with him because if you send out an anthropological field expedition to work in some diggings in an effort to determine the past history of civilization in Canada the result will be that chips of teeth, pieces of bone and beads will be found which are of no significance at all for public display purposes.


Jean Lesage: Oh yes, they can be displayed in such a way with such explanations that they will have significance not only for the people who see them but for our national entity, I would say.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: 1 agree, but the minister has answered my question a little too soon. Before these things can be put on public display many hours of work must go into piecing them together and tying them into a larger pattern. It seems to me that a considerable amount of the time of the staff is spent on research and they must be skilled people in order to do the job, which brings up still another problem. Will the legislation recently passed by the house establishing the Canada Council permit scholarships and fellowships to be given to the technical staff working for the museum on research projects? I think that is quite an important point
because if university people are to receive scholarships or fellowships for anthropological or biological research then the pay schedules of these people will be higher than the present salary schedules of the museum staff. You will find that the museum will be a poor relation from the point of view of competing for technical staff to carry out these research functions. Since the museum certainly is associated with the culture of Canada, I am wondering whether the staff will qualify for grants from the Canada Council.


Jean Lesage: The question had not entered my mind. It is there now.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I think it is rather important because right now we find that our salary schedules are such that we have United States citizens filling responsible positions on the museum staff. Perhaps we should not object to an American citizen holding a position but my view certainly is that an American citizen should not have the position if a Canadian citizen has the necessary qualifications. If our salary schedules are going to be low we will find ourselves in the position of having to use inferior and unqualified staff on this very important work.
My general comment on the museum is that it actually is a poor reflection of the capabalities of Canada. The minister has recognized that fact and I am appreciative that the government has finally seen fit to take this move to expand and develop the museum. At the same time I would point out to the minister and hon. members that if we are going to make an honest attempt to develop the museum, if we are going to have the finances necessary for the staff to go on research expeditions and to display properly the results of their investigations, we cannot be too parsimonious. In this year's estimates expenditures on the national museum amount to approximately $400,000, a pretty small amount compared with the tremendous job the museum is doing, particularly if we contrast the amount provided for the museum with the amounts provided for the national gallery of Canada and the design centre, both of which are in excess of $400,000.
I am not saying that the national gallery is getting too much. It is apparent, however, that the national museum is getting far too little. We will find ourselves in a position where we are going to have to deny trained archaeologists the opportunity to go out on field expedition because of lack of finances and we will certainly be missing an opportunity to explore some of Canada's past, which the minister agrees is so important. With respect to the move to build a truly national museum of which all
1574	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs and National Resources Canadians can be proud I have a suggestion to make. As mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River on a previous occasion, there are a limited number of people who are able to visit the museum in Ottawa and if travelling exhibits can be made available it will do much to promote an interest in and an appreciation of our Canadian culture.
One method the government has followed is the use of travelling displays of Eskimo art. That has been done to such an extent that there is not a decent Eskimo art exhibit in the museum. They have all been sent overseas or sold with the result that we have not really got a display of Eskimo art to show the abilities of the people of that part of Canada, something that is generally unknown to most Canadians.
Finally, I wish the minister luck in his endeavour and I hope he will be able to impress upon his colleagues the need of providing adequate funds to secure qualified personnel to work for the museum in a research capacity and adequate funds to display in an attractive fashion the results of their findings so that they can be a part of the Canadian heritage.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to ask the minister a question or two. When I was speaking the other day I referred to two aspects of this question, one being the size of staff that would be required in each of these museums in the capital city and the other being the possibility of giving financial assistance to some of our museums throughout the country. I mentioned particularly the outstanding display in the museum in Banff national park and the other at Drumheller. They are contributing a great deal to the culture of Canada. Is the minister prepared now to answer these questions?


Jean Lesage: The additions to staff for the coming fiscal year will be as follows. There was one curator for the museum namely Dr. Alcock. He retired last fall. I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Alcock for the tremendous job he has been doing in all the years that he has been curator of the museum. With all the difficulties that have been mentioned by hon. members and by myself as to limitations with regard to space and the amount of money available, he has done an outstanding job as curator of the museum. Because we could foresee some possible expansion of the museum, and as had been recommended by the Massey commission, we decided to divide the museum into two branches pending the adoption of the legislation which is now before us, each with a director at its head. The director of the branch of natural history is Dr. L. S. Russell and the director of the branch of human


history is Dr. Jacques Rousseau, formerly of Montreal, who was director of the Montreal botanical garden. They are two outstanding men in their fields of endeavour. We had the chance of having those two gentlemen take over at the time that Dr. Alcock felt that he should retire.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Is there any objection to putting on the record the salary paid to each as you go along?


Jean Lesage: It is $10,000 each at the present time.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Is that $10,000 a year?


Jean Lesage: A year; yes. So that there was one additional position of director which was created and five other positions have been created. They were created last fall and there is no increase over that, starting from the 1st of April: There is one administrative officer, one anthropologist, one clerk and two stenographers. That will be the staff of the new director of the museum of human history, The immediate staff of the curator having gone with Dr. Russell who is the director of the museum of natural history. It is not duplication at all because we have to set up those two museums as they have in London two British museums. Contrary to what the hon. member for Calgary North had to say the other day, there is one in London which is known as such but there is also another British museum dealing mostly with natural history in the west end of London. So there are two British museums in London.
Those will be the expenditures for the coming year plus what I mentioned a few minutes ago. That is additional space that we will have outside of the present building in order to start work on the exhibits which we will be in a position to show in the museum when the geological survey and the national gallery leave the premises.
As to the help to museums across Canada, I can say that there is close co-operation between the national museum and the various provincial museums like the Royal Ontario Museum, the Quebec Museum and even various private museums across the country. Our people in Ottawa here in the national museum give technical advice to the various museums. For instance, with regard to the Drumheller museum which was mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River, I am informed that during 1956 a palaeontologist from the national museum visited that museum and gave technical advice and encouragement. It is expected that similar opportunities to help that museum will arise next year and in the coming years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister a question?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is any financial assistance given?


Jean Lesage: No. There is no financial assistance given. The large museums are provincial and there are some private museums. But up until now there has been no financial assistance. Whatever money was available for museums was spent on the national museum and was needed there. As to the Banff museum which is an extremely interesting one and one which I myself visited it was thoroughly renovated in recent years, as the hon. member for Bow River knows. This was done by a highly experienced artist-technician who was sent by the National Museum of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the key words
of this resolution appear to me to be the following, "to provide for the establishment of two national museums in lieu of one". I suggest to the minister that the very fact that he is proposing to establish two museums instead of one places a very heavy onus on him to justify such a move. He has intimated that the additional cost will be a minor factor.


Jean Lesage: At this time.


Howard Charles Green: The minister says, "at this
time". There again the key words are "at this time". While there may be only six additional positions at the present time- one director and five other positions-we all know that what follows is that gradually there is a larger and larger branch or department built up. Just because it is human nature, the new director will want to build around himself a big staff. We have seen that happen time and again. Eventually there will have to be two museum buildings and I suspect that there will also develop a certain amount of friction because there are two museums instead of one.


Jean Lesage: They are not dealing with
the same thing at all.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid that a certain
amount of friction' will develop.


Jean Lesage: If you were the minister,
maybe there would be some friction.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the young minister need not think that he is the last word in ministers. He is really only a very junior minister and just a beginner.


Robert Henry Winters: And a very good one.


Howard Charles Green: When he starts talking like
that, he is really asking for a fairly severe
Northern Affairs and National Resources reply. However, I place on his remarks the value which I think they merit, and that is not much. However, I would ask him to explain the difference between the situation in Ottawa and the situation in Toronto. In Toronto there is the Royal Ontario Museum which I believe is the outstanding museum in Canada and one which is a great credit not only to Toronto but to the whole country. If I remember correctly, that museum could be considered as a museum both of natural history and of human history. It is a first-class modern museum and I have never heard of any suggestion that there should be two museums or that it would be much better if there were two instead of one.
The museum here in Ottawa does not begin to compare with the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto at the present time. It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for putting all the energy which the minister claims to possess into the building up of one big museum here at the nation's capital rather than breaking it down into two separate museums as he is proposing to do. Will he explain to the committee why it is that an organization such as the Royal Ontario Museum could not function here in Ottawa just as efficiently as or probably more efficiently than the two museums which he is proposing?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the reason is that the Quebec museum, like the Royal Ontario museum, is dealing with only part of the country's natural history and human history, while the national museum has to deal with both on a national basis. The best evidence of that can be obtained from the people who know history and who know something about museums. I think the best evidence was given before the Massey commission when it sat. This commission not only recommended two museums, but recommended more than that. They recommended that the present museum be created a museum of natural history, and that there be created also museums of human history and science and that we should have zoological gardens. These were the various recommendations of the Massey commission.
The fields of natural history and human history are quite separate on a national basis. In the field of human history you have archaeology and ethnology, while in the field of natural history you are dealing with zoology and geology as well as some other sciences. The Massey commission was very firm in its recommendation that there should be two distinct museums as soon as possible, and that is what is being done now. The reason for doing so is that, as our country grows, we should be in a better posi-
157$	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs and National Resources tion to give to the people of Canada a better knowledge of natural and human history in order that they will make better citizens.
One can find examples of this division of museums in the various countries of the world. For instance in France you have the Musee de l'Homme, which is the French name for the museum of human history. In any country which is any kind of a country you will find both types of museums. For instance, in the city of London there are two British museums, one dealing with natural history and the other one with human history.


Howard Charles Green: What about the Royal Ontario museum? As the minister knows it deals with both of these branches. Surely, the curator of the museum would be well qualified to build up a museum dealing with both branches.


Jean Lesage: Yes, and that is what we have had in Ottawa, a museum dealing with both branches. It is felt, however, that if we want the museum to expand, as we feel it should expand, there is room for two distinct museums which will eventually be housed in two separate buildings. In order to get the long-term planning for that time under way you have to make the division now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Museums form a subject which is a bit over the heads of a good many of us. When I heard the minister compare the London museum with the museum in Ottawa-


Jean Lesage: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I am not the one who raised that question. It was the hon. member for Calgary North who said the other day that there was only one British museum in London and I was just correcting him.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What I was going to say is that the museum in London, which I happened to visit when I was over there, contains the history of the whole world. There is no comparison at all.


Jean Lesage: I am not trying to make any comparison.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think there is going to be duplication. As the minister says, there is a museum in Toronto, and I know there is one in the city of Saint John which gives the history of the peoples of the maritime provinces for the last 300 or 400 years. It deals also with natural history. I do not see why a young country like Canada should feel there is a necessity for two museums in Ottawa, as well as a museum in practically every province in the country. If there is


money to be spent on museums, then I feel that some of these museums in places like New Brunswick which are having difficulty with finances should be given financial assistance. Otherwise, there is bound to be duplication.
We are going to have the history of the maritime provinces represented in certain museums in the east; we are going to have the history of Ontario in the Toronto museum, and in Quebec, the history of Quebec. The same thing would occur right across Canada, so why should we duplicate that work in Ottawa with two museums? Frankly, I do not see the need for two distinct museums. We have a splendid museum established here now and I think we should develop it along the lines upon which it has been developed. Then, we would have something worth while so far as Canada is concerned.


Mr. Knight:: I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland, Mr. Chairman, when he was speaking about some of the methods by which human history is recorded. We have in our province, and it happens to be in my city, a unique experiment in that type of thing. Man's history, of course, has been written in books, written on stone and by various other methods, but I think this one is perhaps unique.
I was interested, too, in the statement by the minister that, so far as he and his department are concerned, they would be pleased to give assistance to various types of museums throughout the country. It is on that statement that I base my hope the particular museum in which I am interested will receive some assistance.
I think perhaps the history of western Canada from the period of 1890 onwards has been largely neglected by historians. I am thinking of the geographical area when I refer to western Canada, and it has been neglected from the point of view of writings. I suppose it is because the people were pioneers and they had to concern themselves with other things, so they did not have time to write their history in books even though they were writing it without knowing it by another method.
There have been one or two books written. I might refer, for example, to the biography of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, as one of the books that has been written which throws some light on the period. I have criticized that biography, not because the Minister of Agriculture is not a picturesque character and typical of that part of history, but because I do not think it is much of a job, as a book. The last time I suggested that, the minister said I might

write a better one myself. I pleaded guilty to the ability, but not to having the time.
Now, to come to the meat of my subject; the thing to which I referred is a museum called the "Pion-Era" museum in the city of Saskatoon. The Minister of Agriculture, who I see is in his seat, knows as much about it or perhaps more than I do. It is unique. It is the history of Saskatchewan for the last 70 or 80 years written in the agricultural implements of the country. I visited it and I was amazed at the educational value of that project. I was amazed at the different attitude or the different way in which people approached that project. It was different from their approach to the ordinary exhibition with its midways and ballyhoo. I saw family after family, wives and children, who were there for the particular reason of educating themselves in the recent and not so recent past of their province. This project started as a very small museum to which people were invited to bring or send old buggies, old threshing machines, old red river carts. There is even an ancient hearse there which reminds us that man after all is mortal, but it is the implements that draw the attention.
You can read the history, step by step, of those earlier pioneers of Saskatchewan from the days when they came west from Ontario, bringing with them things like treadmills for the purpose of threshing grain, treadmills by which water was lifted from wells by the action of a dog running around a wheel, and so on. You can see what has been done by the efforts of a number of men, and I pay tribute to Mr. J. L. Phelps and to the curator, Mr. Shepherd, who has been invaluable in that organization.
They have built up a tremendous thing there. It is sitting on a piece of land which is the property of the organization. I think it is 70 acres in extent. They have a very large covered building which protects those implements. They have a staff of workers, carpenters and the like, who repair those ancient implements that are sent in. There you can see the various means of seeding, the various means of threshing, the development of modern farming all up through the years. That is the museum itself.
In recent years the people there, and 1 think rightly so, have expanded it into an exhibition of sorts. It is not at all for the purpose of making money; it is merely so those old pioneers may come there and bring their children and their grandchildren and show them the conditions under which the pioneers lived and the implements with which they worked in those early days.
They have reconstructed to some extent the life of the prairie homesteader, and for four or five days one can see those activities not 82715-100
Northern Affairs and National Resources simply in imaginary form but in actual fact. Perhaps the minister has attended on one of those days. I have no doubt he has and he would have seen, as I have, oxen-particularly trained for the purpose, because we now have no oxen in Saskatchewan-hauling the plows as in those former days. It brought me back to my own homestead days of four-on teams hooked up to a 14-inch breaking plow, and those big Reeves steam engines hauling 12 or 14 plough bottoms just as they were on the prairies in those days.
My plea is that this sort of thing should have some support. That sort of thing is the book which has not been written but which is in the process of being written, except that instead of pages and words, there are being used the implements showing the actual conditions under which people worked. A part of this particular show consisted of a sod house. You had the people there, the ladies dressed in the costumes of away back in the 1890's, carrying on their daily work.
As to the financial end of the project, it has always been a marvel to me how it has been supported. I appealed to the minister three or four years ago. I told him about it. I hoped that if he were ever passing through my city he would call in and see it. I do not believe he did, but perhaps I am doing him an injustice. If he did not, I would urge him to consult the Minister of Agriculture, and if the Minister of Agriculture could persuade him to go, that would please me greatly.
Now, as to the financial side, this sort of thing costs a lot of money. It is true that they charge entry fees on these days every summer. They have turned it into a sort of second Saskatoon agricultural exhibition with, as I say, purely educational and historical features rather than the usual commercial sort of thing that we have come to think of in exhibitions. In spite of their care and good management they have been going behind financially on this show, and I would like to set forth its requirements. I hold in my hand a letter from the secretary which arrived providentially on this very day. I had no idea that they were now organizing the matter, but they find themselves short of money and they think that they can qualify for both provincial and dominion grants.
This letter was written to me by Mr. Le-Beau, who has no idea that I am going to use it or that I might raise the question. I think it is a circular letter that has been sent to many friends of the organization. It states that the committee in charge are prepared to go ahead and stage their "Pion-Era" in 1957 if a reserve fund of $25,000 can be secured to underwrite it for this first year
1578	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs and National Resources and to make some additional capital improvements. The letter goes on to say:
We have been assured that il 50 per cent of these funds can be raised in Saskatoon and surrounding districts, that the provincial and federal governments will make matching grants and thereafter an annual grant to continue "Pion-Era" as an annual event.
According to this letter it would seem that the condition for such assistance from the two governments mentioned would be the raising of a considerable sum of money on the part of private citizens themselves, and I fancy it was in that connection that the secretary wrote to me in the hope that I would be prepared to give a subscription to that particular fund. But I do urge upon the government and the minister the necessity of looking into this thing to see if it is not a tremendously worth-while project, in that it is the picture of human history so far as Saskatchewan is concerned.
After all, Saskatchewan until now has always been primarily an agricultural province, and the history of Saskatchewan therefore must need be the history of an agricultural people. Until the time comes when some author will blossom out and write a substantial and dependable work upon that province and its pioneers I think this museum and yearly exhibition provide the very best history of the province that we have.
This particular exhibition, if one can call it that, is becoming internationally known, certainly in some fields and in some directions. I should put the name of the organization on record. It is the western development museum in Saskatoon. John Fisher, executive secretary of the Canadian Tourist Association, said on his recent visit to Saskatchewan that some day the exhibition may well rival the famed Calgary stampede as a tourist attraction, and I heartily agree. Quite frankly, I am not so interested in whether or not it becomes a tourist attraction. What I am interested in is that this history of my province may be made permanent through some well-deserved public assistance.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. I would urge the minister to give it some consideration.


Mr. Buchanan:: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing this resolution and museums in general I should like to take this opportunity to say that in the constituency which I represent, Cape Breton North and Victoria, there was opened last summer a museum which I might say, with all deference to my hon. friend from New Brunswick, cannot be duplicated. It was erected in recognition of


a great humanitarian, one of the greatest men of all ages. I refer to Dr. Alexander Graham Bell.
It is perhaps fitting that this museum has been erected on the grounds or near where Dr. Bell did most of his experimenting and very much of his research work, particularly in the field of aviation.
It was at Baddeck that he experimented with and produced the first heavier than air machine to fly in the British Empire. I might say, too, sir, that it was Baddeck this great man chose as his last resting place. He and Mrs. Bell are buried at Beinn Breagh surrounded by the beautiful Bras d'Or lakes and by the brooding beauty of the Cape Breton hills.
This building is of unique design. When Dr. Bell experimented with his flying machines he built kites in a tetrahedroid shape, and this motif can be plainly discerned in the design of the building. I should like at this time to pay tribute to the great personal interest the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has taken in this building. He followed its development from the beginning with keen interest as did his predecessor in office, who is now the Minister of Public Works. We in Cape Breton North and Victoria and in fact all the people of Nova Scotia are greatly indebted to the minister and his staff for the great interest they displayed and their efforts on our behalf in order that we might have this great museum.
I should also like to pay tribute to the family of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, the Grosvenor family and the Fairchild family. Mrs. Fairchild and Mrs. Grosvenor are daughters of Dr. Bell. At considerable expense and sacrifice they gathered together all the things of interest that touched on the life of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell. At this time I should also like to pay tribute to the staff of the museum, who are always so interested in this great collection and who are consistently courteous to the tourists who visit the museum by the thousands during the summer.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of interesting speeches requesting the establishment of museums in various parts of Canada or financial assistance for those already established, and a considerable amount of historical fact or fancy has been introduced simultaneously, all of which while it has been interesting perhaps has had very little to do with the resolution actually under discussion, which proposes to divide the national museum into two separate museums.
The minister seems to think he scored a great victory over me in connection with the British museum. I said the British

Northern Affairs and National Resources
museum was under one administrative head, and as a matter of fact the British museum is in that position. I think the remarks of the minister served only to indicate that he has finally discovered that there is more than one museum in the United Kingdom, a fact with which most of the rest of us were already acquainted. As I say, the British museum is still under one head; there are of course numerous museums in the United Kingdom.


Jean Lesage: Surely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, the British
museum is perhaps the world's greatest, and this extremely large institution is under one administrative head and it has various branches, departments and sub-departments. As a matter of fact the branch dealing with archeology and the ancient civilizations of the Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians has more exhibits than are contained in the whole Canadian national museum. Nevertheless they do not find it necessary to establish a separate museum with a separate administrative set-up for each department. As a matter of fact what the minister is proposing in this resolution, as far as I can see, is tantamount to proposing to divide the Department of Agriculture into two separate departments, one to deal with livestock and the other to deal with plants and crops; the ideas are similar.
I think all of us are anxious to increase the exhibits on display in our national museum and to generally improve it, but in my opinion this will not be best accomplished by what the minister is proposing in this resolution. As a matter of fact I think it is extremely likely that what he is proposing here will have exactly the opposite effect, and we will have a poorer museum than would be the case if we devoted our time and effort to establishing one good museum under one head.
The minister said the cost involved in the new administrative set-up would be comparatively small, but he indicated there will be one new director employed at a salary of $10,000 a year and four other people including an administrative officer, two other employees and a typist or something of that nature. The total cost of the new staff for salaries alone would be not less than $25,000, I would estimate, including $10,000 for the director and $15,000 for the balance of the staff.


Jean Lesage: It may be a little more.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. The total amount to be voted this year for the museum is $328,000. This new administrative set-up is going to constitute 7 or 8 per cent or possibly 82715-100J
more of the total amount of money we are expending on museums. I maintain that this; money could be put into archeological research, and should be devoted to increasing the number of exhibits in our museums and things of that sort rather than in effect being wasted by establishing a new administration for the divided national museum. Our national museum is not going to be so large for many years to come that it cannot function efficiently under one head and with one administrative staff. The increase in staff ia to a large extent a waste of money which could be used to build up the museum, to increase the exhibits and improve things generally. It is nothing more than the setting up of some unneeded jobs.
From what the minister has said already in answer to one or two other questions I take it that the action being provided for in1-this resolution has already been taken, that the museum has already been divided in two, that two directors have been appointed and that administrative staffs have been taken on. In other words the action we are now presumed to be taking in this chamber has already taken place; it is a fait accompli.
I should like to ask the minister under what authority this has been done and these appointments made. The estimates passed last year provided for a salary of $8,600 for the chief curator, who was the head of the museum. This man has now been made one of the directors. The supplementary estimates provided for one full-time position at $9,850. I presume that item was put in the supplementary estimates to provide for the new director the minister is now talking about. I did not understand that position was being provided for when the supplementary estimates were dealt with last summer.
My questions still stand. What authority is there for the division of the museum in two, which has taken place? Under what authority were these extra administrative people taken on, these people who apparently have been working for several months?


Jean Lesage: There has not been a division of the museum in two. That is what is provided for by the resolution before us. The museum has been divided into two branches with two directors. This was done in accordance with the power given the minister under the act. I do not agree with the hon. member when he says the number of administrative jobs has been doubled. The two new directors are not acting only as administrative officers. These men are scientists and research men of great reputation, and each will be able to do a great deal of research work in his own respective field. We were most fortunate to obtain their
1580	HOUSE OF
Northern Affairs and National Resources services as research men and as men of science, not especially as directors. They are there to do research work.
Among the additional positions I mentioned is one anthropologist, which of course is not an administrative job. This is a research and scientific job. There are two clerks and one typist, or something like that, which would be all that is left of the administrative jobs. These directors are great scientists, and we are happy and fortunate to have them in the government service.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If they are great scientists and great research men they will have very little time to devote to those activities because most of their time will be taken in running the museums. Therefore their abilities as research men will be lost. I think the minister stated that the two gentlemen who have been appointed to these positions were Dr. Russell and Dr. Rousseau. I should like to ask the minister where those gentlemen came from and what are their qualifications for these particular jobs. I should like to know whether there were not people already in the museum who could have been promoted to these positions and who could have carried on the work quite satisfactorily.


Jean Lesage: Dr. Russell was with the museum.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what I wanted to know.


Jean Lesage: Dr. Russell is a master of arts and a Ph.D. in paleontology which degrees he obtained from Princeton University. He was in Ottawa from 1930 to 1937, and has been with the national museum since 1950. Prior to that date he held several important appointments with the University of Toronto and the Royal Ontario Museum. During the war Dr. Russell was commissioned as a captain and saw service overseas. He served in several staff positions until November, 1945, when he was demobilized with the rank of major.
The outstanding contributions of the new director of the natural history branch of the museum are in the fields of vertebrate paleontology, particularly that of western Canada. He has also made several contributions to the fields of invertebrate paleontology, geology, zoology and museology. Since 1950 Dr. Russell has served as secretary treasurer of the Canadian Museum Association.
Dr. Jacques Rousseau received his early schooling in Quebec and obtained his B.A. in 1926 from the University of Montreal. He obtained an L.Sc. in 1928 and a D.Sc. in 1934 from the same university. Dr. Rousseau's teaching career began at the University of


Montreal in 1935. In 1938 he became assistant director of the Montreal botanical gardens, and its director in 1944. It was during this period that the Montreal botanical gardens were created and achieved wide renown across Canada.
Dr. Rousseau, for 30 years a professional botanist of distinction, has devoted much time to ethnology since 1932. He has studied especially Algonkian ethnology and devoted some time also to Arctic pedology. Dr. Rousseau is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the Arctic Institute of North America. For many years he was a director and secretary general of the French Canadian Association for the Advancement of Sciences. Dr. Rousseau is on the editorial committee of Archives de Folklore and is a member of the American Anthropological Association as well as being a director of the Canadian Museum Association.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to know that one of these positions was filled by a promotion from within the ranks of people doing allied work in the museum. I am surprised that the other position was not filled in the same way. I would think there must have been a number of people who were qualified for that position. I should like to ask the minister if it is not so that the appointment of someone from outside the civil service to this position was blocked for a time by the Professional Institute of Canada, on the ground that they felt it should have been filled by promotion from within the ranks of professional people in the civil service here.


Jean Lesage: It was done through the civil service commission.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Before the minister replies-and I am not refusing him the right to reply-perhaps I might point out that we are now getting a little far away from the principle of dividing one museum into two. I do not want to restrict the discussion too much, but I am definitely of the opinion that the details of administration of the present museum and the method by which people may be appointed or promoted are not subjects for discussion under this particular resolution. The matter of increasing the payroll and the number of additional employees that would be concerned, their qualifications and so on, of course would come under the resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the questions I have been asking are very appropriate at this time because in my opinion the division of the museum into two parts is

completely unnecessary at the present time and is being done primarily to create jobs for certain people.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no. Mr. Chairman, I have to protest against that. I am afraid that the hon. gentleman has imputed motives, and I do not think he has a right to say a thing like that. These appointments were civil service appointments after public competitions-which were publicly advertised-were held and a list of eligibility had been established by the civil service commission. The department then drew from the list of eligibility according to law.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister s remarks about imputing motives were not strictly in accordance with the facts. I did not impute any motives particularly. I stated what I understood was the situation which existed as far as this matter was concerned and what has actually taken place according to the information I have received. I repeat that it is my understanding that the Professional Institute of Canada protested against this appointment-


Jean Lesage: Not to me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -after it had in effect been made, and that as a result of that protest a civil service competition was held in a rather hurried manner. I should like to ask the minister what was the standing of the various people who took part in that civil service commission examination. Particularly, where did Dr. Rousseau stand on the eligibility list produced by that competition?


Jean Lesage: The only thing I know is that there was a civil service competition for the jobs as directors of museums, and according to the information given to me by my deputy minister, which is the normal course, there were two names on the eligibility list, the first name being Dr. Russell and the second being Dr. Rousseau. They were appointed by the civil service commission to the two positions of directors.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister should produce this eligibility list and read the names of the people on it and what their standing was, because my information is not in accordance with the minister's statement that there were only two names on the list.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The resolution before us is that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act to provide for the establishment of two national museums in lieu of one as at the present time, to be known as, etc. Under that resolution, which is a statement of principle and of policy, the details
Northern Affairs and National Resources of the appointment of the present servants of the museum are not proper subjects for discussion unless it should be established that as part of the action to be taken under this resolution some of the people we are discussing are going to become employees of the new branch. Then the question of whether they are or are not competent to be administrators of the new branches might be discussed. But the details as to what has gone before in the appointment of the present employees of the museum, whether they are efficient or inefficient, whether they were correctly or incorrectly appointed, cannot, in my opinion, have any bearing on the question whether it is or is not expedient to divide one museum into two.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, surely you are not ruling that it is out of order for the hon. member to suggest that this step is being taken in order to provide a job for somebody or for some group of people. I submit that argument is entirely in order under the rules of the house, and when the hon. member for Calgary North makes a submission of that kind I suggest that what he has been saying properly follows. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has suggested that somebody is imputing motives.


Mr. Gardiner:: So you are.


Howard Charles Green: We are imputing motives to the government, and we are perfectly at liberty to do so under the rules of the house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will permit me to say that I think he perhaps was not following me. I made no intervention on the suggestion of imputing motives. I do not think any motives were imputed to the minister. I made no intervention with respect to the submission of the hon. member for Calgary North that one of the results, if not one of the purposes, of the resolution would be to increase the number of employees. My intervention, and I am going to stay with it, was on the ground that the details of the appointment of present employees of the national museum are not pertinent to the decision of the broad question whether or not the over-all structure of one museum shall become that of two.
I intervened a second time definitely when the hon. member for Calgary North suggested to the minister that a list of eligible candidates, I think it was, who applied for a certain position should be submitted to the chamber. I think he would be fully entitled to ask for all that information when we are discussing the estimates of the museum, but not when we are discussing the question whether or not there shall be two museums

Northern Affairs and National Resources in the place of one, and I think the hon. member for Calgary North followed my line of thought.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the chief argument, in fact the only argument, the minister has put up to justify the passage of this resolution and the museum being split into two museums is that it is being done for the purpose of improving the general museum service and things of that sort. My contention is that it is likely to have exactly the opposite effect, first of all because the cost involved in another administrative set-up means that there is going to be that much less money to use for exhibits and generally improving the museum and, second, because the way in which this appointment has been carried out has been such as to discourage people who have been with the museum staff and in the civil service for years in allied jobs. It has been such as to destroy to a large extent the morale of these people, and as a result I think you will have a less efficient museum service and less efficient work.
I do not know whether or not the minister is aware of the situation, but if he is not I would be very surprised. My information is that all the people in the museum held a protest meeting over this matter. As a matter of fact they were so exercised over it that the protest meeting went on from about 9 o'clock in the morning until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and they even forgot to have lunch. If you have a situation of that sort, how can you be improving the general museum service of the country? Instead of improving it you are doing just the opposite; you are destroying it.
That is the reason I bring up these matters. I think the resolution should be defeated, or in any event the bill to be based on the resolution should be defeated, because I think it is doing just the opposite of what the minister says it will do. With respect to what we get by way of exhibits and so on it is going to make the museum service more expensive, and it is serving to destroy the morale of people who have been employed in the museum for many years.


Jean Lesage: There is only one thing I can say. I never heard of that protest meeting, and if it had taken place I undoubtedly would have heard about it. If the hon. member for Calgary North can supply me with a list of the names of the people who held the protest meeting and the date of the meeting I will certainly be very happy to have the information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I might say that whenever anything is mentioned along this line the minister always wants us to
[The Deputy Chairman.]
supply him with the names of the people concerned so he can take punitive action.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


Jean Lesage: So as to investigate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make it clear at this moment that any information I have received in connection with this matter has not been given to me, either directly or indirectly as far as I know, by any member of the museum staff. I have not been in touch with any person working in the museum either directly or indirectly. My sources of information have been other people entirely. How they got their information and so on I do not know. But at least I want it made absolutely clear that none of the people working at the museum have been in touch with me or have given me any information. I would hope that the minister, in ferreting out that information, will not start dissension among that staff and further impair its morale.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly my duty to investigate. I shall certainly investigate the allegations of the hon. member, because when I come to second reading I want to be in a position to say what is the truth.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Lesage) agreed to: Yeas, 38; nays, 6.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 161, to amend the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 157, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not so often that one has a bill which can have only one principle in it, but it so happens that this is one of that type. There is only one objective in the bill, and that is to increase the payments in connection with prairie farm assistance; and that objective runs all through its terms.

There are five categories under which payments can be made under the act. The first is one which has not been operative since wheat went beyond 80 cents a bushel. The others-(b), (c), (d), (e)-have all been increased under this bill. The first item has to do with areas where the crop of wheat is more than five bushels and not more than eight bushels per acre. That is the top category in which payments have been made in recent years.
In dealing with that I should point out that payments are not made on wheat. A great deal of the discussion that goes on in connection with this bill would suggest that the payments are made on wheat. That is not the case at all. Wheat is only used as a barometer to indicate how dry it is in a district, arid for no other reason. Hence if it was only dry enough to put the crop down to more than five bushels and not more than eight bushels, then that is the category in which the lowest payments are made.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister
whether the bill does not provide that land which is covered by water gets full payment?


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall come to that matter later, Mr. Speaker. That, of course, is proof of the point I was just making, namely that it is not wheat that is paid on at all.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And it is not the dryness.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then in (c), if the yield is
more than three bushels and not more than five bushels per acre, the award shall be $3 per acre. There is an increase in both these. In the top one it is 50 cents and in the bottom one there is a new division in the areas. Therefore one cannot say that it is just 50 cents. It is $1.50 above the lowest payment that was made there previously and 50 cents above the highest payment. Then we come to the third which is with regard to crop failure, where there is a crop which is so low, generally speaking, that there is nothing to deliver to the elevator. Of course the item just referred to by my hon. friend, flooded area, is in the same classification. That is where water has been on the land and therefore there is not any crop.
When the question is asked as to what the differences are in payments now as compared with payments in 1939, those are the main facts that must be considered. A man does not need to have anything at all but livestock, arid he can still draw. He does not require to have anything but hay lands, and he can still draw. He could have all his lands summer fallowed in a particular year and still draw. In other words he may farm his land as he thinks
Prairie Farm Assistance Act it ought to be farmed, and if it is dry in the area where he is farming he gets paid. It does not make any difference whether he has wheat or whether he has oats, barley, rye, flax or only pasture; he can get paid. The definition of "cultivated land" makes that very clear. Those who have had the feeling that this is only to take care of wheat growers are scarcely correct in any criticisms that are made along those lines.
The number of acres for which an award may be made has been amended, and that also results in increases. If a man has the limit of 200 acres and you multiply 200 by the figures I have just given, it would indicate that there will be an increase. The section that deals with the minimum has not been changed. Under the old act the minimum was $200 and it is still $200 in the amending bill. There had to be some changes in that section simply for the purpose of putting in the lettering to which this section referred.
Then when we come down to the last section we deal with the matter of blocks. I may say that one of the reasons for having straight lines in the first act was to avoid the very thing that brought about some criticism during the debate on the resolution. We were not attempting to deal with all the area that should be taken care of in a drought period, nor have we been taking care of all the area that should be taken care of because of flooding. It was assumed right from the beginning that the initial responsibility in all three western provinces was with the municipality. Then it was assumed that when the load became too heavy for the municipalities or any one municipality, the province had a responsibility. When it was found there were at least 25 municipalities in a province affected by crop failures of one kind or another, particularly drought and grasshoppers, the federal government assumed some responsibility. The objective then under this bill is to have provision made whereby the federal government would take care of its responsibilities.
As hon. members will recall, in the period that just preceded the passing of the first legislation there were as many as 300 municipalities affected by drought, grasshoppers and everything that goes along with drought. The area was pretty much a solid block centring in southern Saskatchewan and spreading into both Alberta and Manitoba. Along the northern side of the area in Saskatchewan there was an area about which there was some question as to whether it should be in or out. The same thing could be said of areas in the south as the drought moved farther north. Up through Manitoba on the east side and Alberta on the west side there

Proirie Farm Assistance Act were always areas about which there was a considerable discussion as to whether they were in or out.
What was decided was that we would take blocks composed, as the act first provided, of complete townships. Then we would leave any partial townships to be taken care of by the municipalities or the province. It was never intended that there should be areas of which no one would take care. It was assumed that if these conditions were repeated the province would take care of part of it and the small needs would be looked after by the municipalities. I am referring to such things as providing seed and other things which still remain largely for the municipalities.
We went along for some time on that basis. Then it was evident that nothing was going to be done by the municipalities or the provinces, so it was suggested some amend-mends ought to be made. The indications were that some people, who were certainly entitled to it, were not getting assistance. We therefore, made provision for adding certain sections, or taking out certain sections that were outside the solid block or just along the edge of the solid block. Again we stayed with the straight line.
The reason for staying with the straight line was, as I said a moment ago, to avoid putting ourselves in the administration of the act in a position where we could select any individual at all and either put him in or take him out. If these people were entitled to some assistance it was expected that the province would utilize about the amount of money it had utilized prior to our coming into this field in order to take care of them. If it were a specialized case, or the case of a few individuals, it was felt that probably the municipality would take care of them, as the municipality has authority to do in all the provinces.
After having had some experience with these straight lines, we yielded to pressure in connection with the matter and made it contiguous areas. This section of the bill as it now is reads:
Where a block of contiguous sections of land or any block of settlement or river lots within an eligible township having an area of not less than one-sixth of the township and a side that lies along the boundary of an ineligible area is determined by the board to have an average yield of more than 10 bushels of wheat per acre, such block of land shall be ineligible for award.
It has been said over and over that hail does not follow a straight line; drought does not follow a straight line; grasshoppers do not follow a straight line, so by this provision you can swing inside an area where there is a block of six sections or

more that have 10 bushels of wheat to the acre, and say that is not dry enough to bring it under this act so it goes out because it is alongside an area which is out.
Then, on the other side, there is the next paragraph, paragraph (b), which provides for taking in sections where the dry area runs out over the solid block. The main reason for staying with straight lines in all these cases was so that no government or board or minister or deputy minister or anyone else could be accused of putting an individual in or taking an individual out. If he was out and needed help, then there was someone else who was supposed to give that help. If he was in and should be out, there was some provision for taking him out by using straight lines.
Again the question was raised as to why a man was in who had 20 bushels to the acre. One has to understand farming in the west in order to understand that. He may have had, say, 20 acres of the best land he had, land that had been summer fallowed, land that had been given very special care, in wheat and all the rest of his crop might be on inferior land as compared with the land on which he grew wheat. He might have' had 20 bushels of wheat to the acre, not because it was not dry in the area but because that piece of land had been given special care.
I would say that ninety-nine times out of a hundred where that condition existed he would have a lot of other crops that were not good. He would not be dependent on wheat for his existence. He might happen to have livestock, and when a man is dependent on livestock for his livelihood and has a grass failure he is in a worse position than the man who has just had a failure in wheat. The man who has a failure in wheat is not as hard up as the man who has livestock on land where there is not sufficient grass and who has to buy feed. I just want to emphasize the fact that this bill was not drawn to deal with wheat, it dealt with drought and the conditions that follow drought and more recently took in flooding.
Then we make it the contiguous sections. As a matter of fact I personally am opposed to this amendment being made at all, and I would say that if there are enough members in the committee to put it back where it was, with rectangular blocks, I am all for it. It can be discussed in the committee when we get there, as to whether it should be in or out; but it does have the effect of perhaps increasing slightly the payments which are made in general over the whole area, and to that extent I say it is within the principle of the bill in that it does increase payments. But when you start a

group of men working over an area that is comparatively dry it goes without saying that there are going to be areas in there with land a little better than some of the other land where, by zig-zagging around, you can put a fellow out.
If the fellow happens to be a good Grit and he is put out, well, nobody criticizes that because it is a Liberal government that is kicking him out, they say. But if it works the other way and it happens to be a good Liberal who is put in, well, that is all wrong. And, vice versa, if you, to use the same terms, are dealing with a good C.C.F.'er, if there are any, and he is put out, well, that is the government acting against its opposition. If he is brought in, then perhaps Liberals say, well, that is something you should not have done at all, so one is up against troubles in connection with it all the way through.
I must say that if the provinces and the municipalities were looking after what we thought they were going to look after when we brought in this legislation we would not have under consideration departing from the rectangular blocks, but we are departing from the rectangular blocks in this amendment. It will be brought before the committee, as was suggested the other day; at least I assume the house will agree that the bill should go to the committee.
I do not think there is anything more I need to say at this time apart from that. It is entirely on the principle of the bill, and the principle is to increase the payments above what they have been under the act as it was and there really is not any other principle in the bill but that. There is nothing more that I should discuss on the second reading, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest to the house that it is my wish, and I hope it is the wish of the house, to have this bill referred to the agriculture committee as soon as it is given second reading and have full discussion there on all the points in which we may be interested.


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to hold up the passage of this bill. I just wish to say that I support it and I am sure my colleagues will also. The minister has stated that the bill will be going to a committee. We do not wish to lengthen the discussion of the bill at this time, but I do feel that the additional benefits, though they are somewhat meagre, will be well received by those who can qualify to receive them.
There are a couple of questions I should like to ask. I understood the minister to say that these benefits were for drought and flooding only. Is that true, or do they take in hail damage as well?
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not intended to cover hail, but it quite often does because hail happens to come in the areas where the crop is low enough to bring that about. If the hail storm covered the whole township-and it does not very often happen that a hail storm covers a whole township-then it would come in. But hail storms usually run in narrower strips than that, and the townships do not come in automatically because of hail.


James Alexander McBain: When the damage covers a whole township what percentage of hail damage-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I think perhaps I should point out that at the moment the house is not in committee. If the hon. member for Elgin has further remarks to make of course I will give him the floor, but we are not in a question and answer period.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am associating myself with the rest of this group when I say we are happy to find that the bill is an expansion of the original act in so far as it gives more benefits than the original act did. I am very pleased to know that it is going to be discussed in the agriculture committee, but it was a little difficult for me to follow the minister's explanation. I suppose he will immediately say that is quite understandable.
In particular I would like some further information, if he would give it when I conclude, regarding the flooded areas. I notice there is mention of that in the bill. As he knows, in the northeastern section of my province over the past few years very serious flooding conditions have existed. In spite of the explanation the minister made a moment ago, the fact remains that in order to qualify the average yield is the factor that is taken into account in respect of eligibility for payment. What has happened in that area over the years, as he is well aware, is that regardless of how severe the flooding may be the farmer has been able in some areas to get under cultivation at least a small part of his cultivated acreage, possibly only 5, 8 or 10 acres. The result is that in most cases the yield is something in excess of the maximum of eight bushels an acre, and therefore the farmer is not able to qualify.
I would like the minister to expand his explanation in that regard, if he would, to try to clear up in my mind just what is involved, because we feel in that area, unless we are going to have some easement or some widening of those factors which have to do with eligibility, that we are being discriminated against to some extent by continually paying those levies year after year.
1586	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
When this bill goes to the agriculture committee for further study I hope we shall have figures relating to how much money the department has paid out over the years, from nothing to four bushels an acre, as it now stands, and from four bushels to eight bushels an acre. I hope we will have something in that regard. I would like the minister to explain at this time what the bill proposes in regard to that flooded part of the country, or any area that is flooded, in respect of qualifying for the payments.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can do that when I close the debate on second reading. According to the rules I am not permitted to answer questions now.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we spoke at some length at the resolution stage, and since it is the intention to refer this bill to a committee I have no intention of holding it up now except to say we are in favour of the principle, which is to increase payments.
1 should like to say one or two words on section 6, which make a change from rectangular blocks to a block of contiguous sections. If there were any alternative to that I would suggest that section 6(a) continue to be in rectangular blocks and section 6(b) be in the contiguous blocks. The reason for that, of course, is obvious.
There is one other thing that seems to have created a somewhat anomalous condition as between section 1(e) and section 6(b). Under section 1(e) when land is flooded, or it cannot be sown, and you have one-sixth of the township, the full amount can be paid. All you need is one-sixth of a township. Under section 6(b), if there is an average yield of less than eight bushels to the acre and you have six sections that are contiguous to one another, one side of which is alongside a township that is eligible, then it can be paid.
But in section 6(b) you have to have a township and six sections, and in section 1 (e) you need only six sections.
That does seem peculiar for this reason, that in the one case in section 6(b) a farmer must have gone to all the trouble of sowing the land and paying the cost of seed, cultivation and maybe spraying, and then he can get compensation only provided there is a township and six sections, but in the other case the farmer has had no expense and merely because the land is flooded he can get compensation despite the fact that there are only six sections and there does not have to be a township in addition to the six sections.
I should have thought it would be the other way around, and that where a farmer has had a lot of expense it should be easier to 

get compensation than when he has not had any expense; but that can be discussed in committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, we have already voiced our approval of the increases provided in the bill, but I hope when the committee has a chance to go into this matter in detail the members of the committee would give some consideration to the question raised at the resolution stage by the hon. member for Yorkton and later by myself concerning crown lands.
The minister said the other day that a great part of that problem has been solved by the Veterans' Land Act in taking up certain crown lands and settling returned men who are not excluded from payment. But there are still a number who are farming crown lands purchased after January 1, 1940, who are not veterans and who are now being excluded by this act from payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. They have a legitimate grievance, in that they are forced to pay the 1 per cent levy. They have been paying it since 1939 or since the time they began farming until the present time, and will have to continue to pay it as long as this act remains in effect, with no possibility under the terms of this legislation of ever receiving any benefit from this fund.
It seems to me to be a fundamental injustice to ask a person to continue to pay into a fund from which under no circumstances whatever can he ever derive any benefit. I hope not many farmers are affected. I do not have statistics on hand to show the number, but I do know there are some farmers right in my own constituency and in other constituencies in Manitoba who are affected, who have been complaining and who in my opinion have a legitimate grievance.
I merely express the hope at this time that those members who will serve on the committee will give their attention to this problem and will try to provide something in the act at this time to solve the problem for the future. It may be some years before this act will be amended again, and that injustice will continue until such time as steps are taken to prevent it. While we are dealing with the act at this time I think it would be an appropriate time to solve that problem once and for all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Agriculture speaks now he will close the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the question that was raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. The suggestion he made really contains the answer,

because in western Canada it is almost impossible to find an area where there is flooded land where the yield will not be higher than is stated in the act. But that does not apply to that section at all, and that is the reason it does not apply. If it has rained sufficiently to flood the land so it will not grow a crop, then that land automatically comes in even if it is in the middle of one of the best crop areas in the country.
The reason it has to be at least six sections is to ensure that the applicant will not be some person who is farming in a slough when it happens not to rain, and at other times when it rains he cannot farm. He probably gets good returns in the years when it is dry and other people do not get anything. It can hardly be made to apply to just one small area and so it was made 3,840 acres, which is six sections. The reason six sections are stipulated is to avoid all the other matters that have been criticized, mainly the straight lines. It is possible for it to zigzag around all over the place, and it does not have to be alongside any township. There is no question of having an area contiguous to or alongside another township. In fact it can be located right in the middle of a township, or it can include the four corners of four townships. Indeed, it can be located anywhere.
The reason there must be some limit on it is that as everyone knows there are areas in western Canada that are littered with what we call sloughs. You would not call them sloughs in eastern Canada; they may be described here as ponds or something else; but in dry country no matter where it is located there is a greater tendency for water to run into low places and stay there when there is no outlet. The same condition obtains in the vicinity of the Dead sea and in other areas where there is great drought. The water keeps running into those low places, and one cannot farm there in wet years.
The act states that if you were able to farm in three years out of the previous five, then you can come in under the act; but if you were not able to farm for three years out of the previous five because of water the land would be considered a natural slough area and the position taken would be that you should not be paid for not being able to farm an area that had water on it more often than not. That is the general principle underlying the provision.
There is another matter in this connection, and of course we only learn about some of these things as we go along. The act states that there has to be a continuous area. Our general difficulty in connection with this has been that there are areas where there always have been many sloughs except in drought 82715-10X4
Prairie Farm Assistance Act years, when in all probability they dried up; but in all other years they contained water. There is some difficulty in determining how much of the slough had water in it all the time and how much around the outside came about only because of the flooding.
For example, I received a letter yesterday from a man, and it was the third time he wrote me. We sent inspectors out on two previous occasions to attempt to convince him that he was not right, but now he has a petition as long as your arm and he has sent it in to prove that he is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wrote to him only yesterday to tell him that he could do that job better than anybody else. He is in the best position to determine whether or not he is entitled to payment. He and a group of others want to claim their payments for 1955, which is two years ago. It is extremely difficult for anyone who goes out to inspect the land today to know where the water was in 1955. That is the position in which our inspectors find themselves. In my letter to this gentleman I suggested to him that he and one or two of his neighbours should take the act along with them and go out and measure the slough as it was before we ever saw it, and tell us what the conditions are now compared to what they were in 1955. Everyone who is familiar with the west will understand that these problems exist, and we have plenty of them.
When you go into areas like those in the vicinity of the Assiniboine river or the Qu'Appelle river you find that the problem does not exist in such intensity because there is a stream running through and the water will come from the stream and flood the land. There is no great difficulty in finding an area comprising 3,840 acres alongside the streams on which payment can properly be made.
Even if you are up on higher ground you can quite often find an area that is large enough. Take Kipling lake for example, about which there was so much difficulty two years ago. I think one could have proved very easily that there was enough acreage to bring it within this act, because all you had to do was to go and look at it. The farmer's house was sitting out in the middle of the lake. What is a little island now was not an island when he put up his house. You can deal with these cases very successfully.
We felt we had to take some care. We are gaining some experience. There may be people who think we should change the acreage this year, but we have not had

Supply-Northern Affairs sufficient experience with it to justify making a change and coming to ask the house to increase the payments in that way. We will need to have more experience before we can suggest that to the house, and probably we never will be able to suggest it based on the experience we get. This has met most of the requirements, and the fact is that it brought about increased payments. I have the figures here, so probably I had better not just think about it but give them as listed.


Hazen Robert Argue: It will be a happy improvement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Prior to the time the flood conditions occurred in Manitoba there never was a time when the payments were greater than $905,416, which was the total in 1939. In 1954 the payments totalled $5,259,289, and then the next year they had dropped down to $2,150,946. I give those figures to indicate that apparently this provision is taking care of people who were not taken care of before. If I had time I could give the figures for Saskatchewan and indicate that the same thing happened in the northeastern area. However, that can be done in committee.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
297. Departmental administration, $637,817.
Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for
1957-58 provide for substantially increased activities in northern Canada, for continuing major developments in the national parks, for expanded activities in the forestry field, for a continuation of important studies in the field of Canada's water resources, and for an important increase in the field of travel promotion.
For the department as a whole the estimates for 1957-58 total approximately $46,400,000, an increase of about $8,400,000 over the previous year. Almost three-quarters of this increase is devoted to northern development. Important projects include bridges in the Yukon, a major program on the construction of the highway to Yellowknife at a cost of over $2,500,000, the construction of two hostels and a 25-classroom school at the new site of Aklavik at a cost

of almost $2 million, the completion at a cost of $1 million of the hostel and school at Fort Smith and the commencement Of a hostel and vocational training school at Yellowknife at a cost of $1 million. Many other projects are of course provided for, including housing for Eskimos at various locations and improvements to educational facilities.
In the national parks and historic sites the over-all program has been held at about the same level, but adequate provision has been made for the continuation of the redevelopment of major park highways. This program includes some $3 million for further work on the Banff-Jasper highway in Alberta, some $3,100,000 for the Banff-Windermere highway in British Columbia, $1 million for the Cabot trail in Nova Scotia and $700,000 for the Gulf Shore road in Prince Edward Island. Major reconstruction at Halifax citadel will be continued, an important development at Signal Hill in Newfoundland will be undertaken, and restoration of Fort Langley, British Columbia will be completed.
In the water resources field the field studies program on the Columbia river has been reduced as work is nearing completion, but this has been counterbalanced by provision for expanded hydrometric survey work across Canada, by provision for increased expenditures on studies by the lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba board, and by provision of $100,000 for special studies required in the development of water use policy.
Major increases are requested in the appropriations of the forestry branch. These include an added $325,000 for contributions to the provinces under the Canada Forestry Act, this increase being made necessary by the provision of some $500,000 to assist the provinces for the first time in the field of forest fire protection. An increase of about $335,000 is provided to assist in the fight against the spruce budworm in New Brunswick, where it is now apparent that an expanded program is required in the coming year. The other major increase lies in the completion of the construction of the laboratory for the pulp and paper research institute of Canada near Montreal. This project was commenced in 1956-57 and should be completed in 1957-58, at a total cost of about $2,250,000.
The regular program of the Canadian government travel bureau will be continued, but provision is being requested in the 195758 estimates to cover a special campaign at a cost of about $300,000 to stimulate travel to Canada's Atlantic provinces, whose economies are dependent to a considerable extent on the tourist industry.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I have some rather extended remarks to make on these estimates perhaps you could call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The assistant clerks inform me that there are four bills in committee. Shall these be considered under the one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, there are five.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that these five bills be committed at the same time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 16, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries -Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, before this measure carries I have a few words to say, because the bill is of some importance to a good number of constituents whom I have the honour to represent. The explanatory note in the bill reads in part as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to simplify the corporate organization of Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The remarks I intend to make and the amendments I intend to move are in an effort to simplify the life of some of my constituents. This somewhat routine, under ordinary circumstances, bill contains the names of two railway companies which have served a region that has a very interesting and particular history. I refer particularly to that part of British Columbia that lies between Nakusp on the Arrow lakes and Kaslo on the Kootenay lakes, and the two companies in question are the Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company and the Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company.
I said these railroads had served a country with a particular history, in the first instance a history of some dramatic incidents, first of all in the discovery of silver and other ores in the early 1890's. I am not going to expatiate on that aspect of the development, because I think other members possibly have a closer and more personal knowledge of that period. It is also a country in which there have been many famous men and, from what I hear, though not from personal experience, many famous women.
Private Bills
Then there was the very interesting and famous strike that occurred in the Slocan country, which was one of the most interesting incidents in the labour history of British Columbia. The strike was brought about by a contest between some very ruthless American capitalist owners of the mines in question in the Slocan country and the miners who were members of the western federation of miners. The strikers were quite peaceful and were simply asking for what would be considered today a very modest increase in wages and very slight improvements in their working conditions. But the then attorney general of the province became so excited over the situation that he gave orders for a regiment of British Columbia troops to be moved into the Slocan country to stop the strike.
Iam very glad to be able to say that it was the uncle of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who was then a member of the provincial house, who saw the foolishness of this action and persuaded the premier of the province of the time to have the order cancelled. That was the late Senator Green, and it was largely for that reason that the late Senator Green, while he was the member for Kootenay West, could run as a Conservative and get a majority of the labour votes in the constituency.
This region was also the scene of the first great organization of the western federation of miners in southeastern British Columbia They came over from the United States and an organization was required, and the core ot that organization was in the then city of Sandon and the present city of Kaslo. There were many very interesting incidents surrounding the early organization of the federation.
Then there was a period of extremely rapid growth when Kaslo as a matter of fact, was the capital of the Kootenays, a period that saw a phenomenal building of railroads, building of roads, discovery of mines, and so on. Shortly after that came a period of very rapid growth and great production of ores throughout that region.
In addition, the region these two railroads serve has been a country of several important firsts. That is a very common thing in the constituency I happen to represent. There was the first organization of the western federation of miners, the first drafting of a socialist program in British Columbia in the then city of Sandon in 1885, and the publication of the first socialist newspaper in British Columbia by Mr. Pettipiece, the paper being the Lardeau Eagle. Then there was the first development-I think the Minister of Fisheries will know something about this because while he is an expert on fisheries

Private Bills
his early history is more connected with the development of the mining industry-of certain processes for the milling of ores in the Slocan country. This involved the development of successful processes for the milling of certain ores which up to that date had been considered quite complex.
Then we have these two railroads, the terminal at one end being the village of Nakusp and at the other end the city of Kaslo. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was born in the city of Kaslo, and I am quite sure that before the debate is over we shall hear from him in connection with the bill. 1 was reborn in the village of Nakusp, and I may say that Nakusp is the most beautiful village in British Columbia and Kaslo and New Denver vie for second place as the most beautiful locations in the rest of the province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is quite a bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Since 1890 there has been great production of ore in the Slocan portion of the area served by these railroads. There have been ups and downs largely occasioned by the fluctuating price of silver in the early days but tremendous wealth has been taken out of the Slocan country since 1890 up to the present time. Even since the war the production has been tremendous, though owing to the drop in the prices of silver and zinc production has been less in the last two or three years.
The mountains are full of ore. There are masses of ore in the country, and all that is necessary is satisfactory prices to enable the ore to be worked. Some mines are working very successfully at the present time, particularly Violamac close to Sandon. Since 1895 there has been increasing production of lumber, particularly in the Arrow lakes area but to some extent in the Slocan area and to a considerable extent around the Kaslo area. In addition both Kaslo and Nakusp are noted throughout Canada for their cherries and other fruit products.
The operation of these railroads was based on the necessity to haul the products of the mines and the woods to market, and they play a very important part in the economy of the district. I have just remembered that I was on a committee that welcomed the arrival of the first train from Kaslo to Nakusp, and if my memory serves me correctly the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was a passenger on that train.


Mr. Sinclair:: What year was that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was in 1914. That was the completion of the road. As a matter of fact the life history of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and my own have been

somewhat parallel, though unfortunately he has gone in the wrong direction in some things.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: There has been some deviation lately.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As I said before, there has been millions of dollars worth of production from the mines in the area and from the woods and as far as the forestry industry is concerned there are possibilities for that production to be continued forever under proper forest management which I trust the present government of British Columbia will carry out. As far as the mining industry is concerned, I have talked to prominent mining engineers in the district, to members of the eastern British Columbia chamber of mines in Nelson, and I have read reports on the various mines published by Mr. Walker, deputy minister of mines in the province of British Columbia. There is no question about it, there are tremendous reserves of ore in that area.
Everything went along fairly well, with no one in the district anticipating any difficulties with respect to railroad transportation, until 1955. In June of that year we had a most unusual and severe storm in the district.
I should say that our country is very free of strong winds, storms and exceptional weather conditions. This quite unusual storm created a great many unusual freshets that washed out a good many sections of the Kaslo and Slocan railway between Parapet and Kaslo and I understand resulted in damage to the railroad amounting to something over $200,000. Shortly after that rumours began to go around the district to the effect that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was going to make application to the board of transport commissioners for the right to abandon the road between Kaslo and Parapet and between that portion of the line and Sandon, a total mileage in all of 35 miles.
The first I heard of it was in a letter I received from the Kaslo board of trade shortly after my return home following the session of that year. I will read the letter because it indicates the concern of the people there. I might say that the president of the board of trade in Kaslo was then the manager of the Canadian Bank of Commerce there. He was a community-minded citizen who was greatly disturbed over the possibility of this line being abandoned. He had full knowledge of the situation, being the bank manager in the city of Kaslo. This is a copy of the letter which he wrote to the secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and which is dated August 18, 1955. It reads as follows:

Dear Sir: Canadian Pacific Railway Company
re Kaslo to New Denver, B.C. Line As a result of a severe storm near the end of June last the above line was damaged to the extent that there has been no scheduled traffic over it since and no freight service over it of any kind.
It is now rumoured that the C.P.R. are applying through yourselves for abandonment of this line. Inquiries as to the truth of this move have been made by us direct to the C.P.R. but to date they have not given us any definite reply; however equipment is being moved out and all section maintenance crews are being laid off.
As you are probably aware this line runs in its entire distance through a very heavily mineralized area and since the 1890's there have been vast quantities of lead and zinc mined here. The recession in the past two years in base metal prices has brought these operations to a low point but as all who are familiar with mining know well this condition can change practically overnight, and in the over-all picture the railway has moved a large tonnage, all of it very vital to the economy of this area. In this area also are considerable stands of timber and poles.
This board and the people of this community are very disturbed at the prospect of the abandonment of this line and we intend to protest the move vigorously and to take the matter up through our federal representative in parliament-
In whom they have great confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The letter continues:
-and through our members in the provincial government.
That letter, Mr. Chairman, was an official indication of the concern of the people of that area. In any event, the C.P.R. finally made application to the board of transport commissioners to abandon this 35 miles of right of way comprising the whole of that of the Kaslo and Slocan railway and a portion of that of the Nakusp and Slocan railway. That started things humming. There were meetings in Kaslo, Nakusp, New Denver and in Nelson which I attended. I did what I could to assist them in gathering information or by telling them where they could obtain it.
The matter was of such great importance to the mining operators in the Slocan and Kaslo country and to the lumber operators in that area that there was a particularly well co-ordinated effort put forth. There was co-ordination in the gathering of facts. There was co-ordination in the submission of evidence. There was unanimity and united opposition to this unexpected and unwarranted move on the part of the C.P.R.
As I said before, I attended these meetings and had the opportunity to witness the concern not only of the companies operating in the district but of the unions representing the workers in the district and of the people in the communities generally, and also the determination to do all they could to stop this application from being successful. Everything possible was done to get the
Private Bills
history of the whole situation. Incidentally I might mention at this time that these railroads were not only chartered under federal charter but were chartered under legislation in British Columbia. In one of those documents is a reference to the fact that, in return for certain subsidies, the C.P.R. agreed to keep the Kaslo and Slocan railway in operation forever. Apparently that reference was overlooked entirely.
In any event, all this effort on the part of the people concerned was to no avail and finally the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was granted by the board of transport commissioners. Unfortunately, owing to the C.P.R. strike which necessitated my taking devious modes and methods of transportation, although I arrived here on time I was unable to bring my trunks and other things. I could simply carry a briefcase and a suitcase. As a result I have not with me the file on this question. Since I arrived here the Arrow lakes have frozen up, there is no transportation to my ranch and I cannot get it. Hence I am largely obliged to rely on tidbits from here and there.
Anyway, I have in my hand a copy of the Kootenaian published in Kaslo, British Columbia, of January 24. It contains a headline "Abandonment Allowed", "Commission Grants C.P.R. Request to Abandon Kaslo-Denver Line". It am just going to quote the article because it quotes from or publishes the judgment. The article reads as follows:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been granted leave to abandon its line between Kaslo and New Denver.
In a letter received here by W. J. D. Walker, chairman of the abandonment committee of district organizations opposing the abandonment at a board of transport commission hearing at Nelson a year ago, chief commissioner Mr. Justice John D. Kearney has stated:
"1. Abandonment of operation of the Sandon branch between Parapet and Sandon is approved.
"2. Abandonment of the railway between Kaslo and Denver Canyon, other than the Sandon branch is approved, subject to the condition that as soon as said operation is abandoned, the C.P.R. shall reconvey to the crown in the right of the province of British Columbia all its rights, title and interest in and to the railway right of way of the line between Kaslo and Parapet.
"3. Neither the abandonment of operation approved in No. 1 or the conditional abandonment of operation approved in No. 2-
I want you to note that phrase "conditional abandonment".
-shall take place earlier than February 1, 1957."
The C.P.R. applied for leave to abandon the 33-mile line between Kaslo and New Denver and a two-mile branch line to Sandon after the June 1955 floods extensively damaged it. Company spokesmen at the hearing stated the C.P.R. had been losing money on the line in recent years-

Private Bills
Only in recent years. They made a great deal of money in previous years.
-as much as $49,838 in six months in 1955. That, coupled with the estimated $200,000 to repair it, made abandonment desirable, the C.P.R. felt. Counsel tor the C.P.R. was F. H. Britton of Vancouver, company solicitor.
Groups opposing the abandonment argued the present economy and future development of the area was largely dependent on the rail line. It was the area's only rail link and its abandonment would seriously affect the economy of the entire Slocan.
Opposing the abandonment were Cody-Reco Mines Limited, represented by J. R. Reyeroft; the B.C. attorney general's department, boards of trade and chambers of commerce of Kaslo, Slocan district and Nakusp, city of Kaslo and villages of New Denver and Silverton, whose counsel was L. S. Gansner of Nelson.
Mr. Justice Kearney, in his letter to Mr. Walker, stated the orders listed above were made "upon consideration of submissions on file and for reasons which will be given in a written judgment at a later date".
This means that the decision has been made. The only service or means of transportation between Kaslo and New Denver at the present time is a very narrow road, more properly termed a goat trail. Over this very narrow road thousands of tons of ore have to be trucked at the present time, and there is likely to be a great deal more in the future. With these vast quantities of ore to be moved, and without any doubt the development of highway and other traffic in the future between Kaslo and New Denver as well as other parts of the interior, it is essential that the present railway right of way be converted into a highway. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will agree, knowing the geography as well as I do, that the present railway right of way provides the only route for the development of a satisfactory highway between Kaslo and New Denver. In the early days the railways always got the choice sites in the bottom of the valleys. The roads built since that time have had to be built higher up at considerable expense to the public in many cases, as is witnessed along the Fraser canyon.
We were informed in the committee that the Canadian Pacific has taken some steps to implement the part of the board of transport commissioners' decision which mentions that the road had to be offered to the government of British Columbia. The Canadian Pacific has offered the right of way to the government of British Columbia, I understand, but to date there has been no response to that offer. I would not for a moment question that in the strict legal sense, according to the terms of this bill, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company takes over the responsibilities and obligations of the Kaslo and Slocan railway and the Nakusp and Slocan
[Mr. Herridge.l
railway. But this is a very important matter to the people living between New Denver and Kaslo. It is a very important matter to those people whose living depends on the continued development of that district. While in the strict legal sense one could say that these names could be included in this bill because the Canadian Pacific, by incorporating these companies into the main system, assumes the responsibilities and obligations of those companies, I feel there is a certain psychological advantage that can be gained for the people I have the honour to represent, and I hope later on a material advantage, by having the names of the Kaslo and Slocan railway and the Nakusp and Slocan railway deleted from this bill.
I am sure this will not cause a great deal of inconvenience to the Canadian Pacific. Next year the company intends to come before the committee and ask that certain other subsidiary companies be washed out and incorporated in their main system. I feel, in view of the fact that this highway is so important to the people of the area, that the deletion of these names from this bill, and holding over final transfer of these companies to the main company, will emphasize the importance of this matter to the people I have the honour to represent, and emphasize to the company and the government of British Columbia their desire for the consummation of the order of the board of transport commissioners.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, at a later stage in this debate I intend to move certain amendments with a view to having the names of these two companies removed from this bill not in any spirit of criticism of the Canadian Pacific but simply because I consider -withholding approval might be a spur to action by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do all it can to see that this order is completed, and a spur to the government of British Columbia to accept this right of way and build the necessary highway for the people residing between Kaslo and New Denver.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to the remarks just made by my old comrade and good friend the hon. member for Kootenay West. The request he has made, of course, affects the people in his own riding very seriously. In view of my own old association with that district, which continues up to the present time, I too am very much concerned that everything that can be done will be done to help the residents of that district.
Last year the Canadian Pacific Railway Company started on a course of absorbing 37 subsidiary companies. Last session they dealt

with 13 of those companies and the bill was brought before this house in the usual way, then referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It was duly adopted. This year the company has brought in a bill covering 12 more subsidiaries. When this bill was in the other place the sponsor explained that in 1958 a bill would be introduced covering the remaining 12 companies. What the hon. member for Kootenay West and I are asking is to have these two companies, the Kaslo and Slocan railway company and the Nakusp and Slocan railway company, deleted from the bill and left over to be dealt with in the bill which is being brought in next year.
We make that suggestion because, as he has very ably pointed out, there is unfinished business in so far as these two particular subsidiary companies are concerned. An order was made by the board of transport commissioners, I think less than a month ago, giving leave to abandon the line owned by the Kaslo and Slocan railway company and also a few miles of the line owned by the Nakusp and Slocan railway company. There was a condition attached to that order, namely that the railway company must convey the right of way on which the line was being abandoned to the provincial government. There has not yet been time to have that condition carried out. What we are concerned with is that there shall be no delay in the carrying out of that condition. We believe it is much more likely to be carried out quickly if the two companies are taken out of the present bill.
The difficulty in the district started in 1955 when there were quite disastrous floods, particularly in the city of Sandon. In that province in the early days those small towns could be incorporated as cities, and although the city of Sandon has perhaps only a half dozen or a dozen residences it is still a city. Those floods washed out the track in that particular part of the constituency and did a lot of damage. There is no question of that. But I have always believed that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was rather quick on the trigger when it moved at once to get an order to abandon the line. I do not believe it needed to do that. The officials saw an opportunity to get out of that district, and they made the application. It was opposed by the communities affected, not only by their councils but also by their boards of trade and by the mining companies which have been carrying on mining operations in the district, and also by the provincial government.
During the hearings the question of how the area was to be served if the railway
Private Bills
was abandoned became very prominent. I hold in my hand a press dispatch of February 2, 1956, from the Vancouver Sun, headed:
C.P.R. Urged to Give Rail Line to Government
Transport commissioner advises deal for Kaslo-New Denver road
The dispatch is from the city of Nelson, which is also in my hon. friend's constituency. It reads:
The Canadian Pacific Railway should give the British Columbia government its Kaslo-New Denver branch line and $75,000, Mr. Justice John D. Kearney suggested here Wednesday.
The rail company should then ask the government to build a highway, he said.
He advanced his suggestion as the board of transport commissioners ended a two-day hearing into the company's application to abandon the rail line.
It may seem peculiar that the chairman of the board of transport commissioners would make a suggestion that the C.P.R. should pay $75,000 to the province, but there is a story behind that, too. This railway from Kaslo to Sandon was originally a narrow gauge Great Northern line. The Great Northern went in from Kaslo to the mines in Sandon. The C.P.R. went in from Nakusp. There was pretty tough competition. I believe at one time one of the railways moved the station of the other line in the middle of the night. Those were hectic times in the district and there was very bitter feeling. I can remember that the city of Kaslo was of necessity a Great Northern town, and as a result it did not get many favours from the C.P.R., although that company ran a boat to the town.
Well, eventually the Great Northern stopped running the railway and after many negotiations, in which the provincial government was very directly involved, and a great deal of worry on the part of the mine operators and all the residents in the district, an arrangement was made under which the British Columbia government took title to the Great Northern part of the line and sold it to the Canadian Pacific Railway for $25,000 in 1912. Then, in addition, they gave the C.P.R. $100,000 to convert it into a standard gauge line and connect it up with their own line from Nakusp into Sandon.
Therefore the chairman of the board of transport commissioners was referring to that particular time when he suggested that the Canadian Pacific should pay back the $75,000 to the provincial government, that being the difference between what the C.P.R. had paid for the line originally and what the government had then paid over to the railway company. Mr. Justice Kearney was quoted in the press dispatch as having said:
"If I were the C.P.R.," Mr. Justice Kearney said, "I would just reverse the agreement of 1912 and

Private Bills
tell the government 'I want you to build the road. If you do I'll give you back the $75,000 you gave me and the railroad as well'.
And if I were the provincial government I'd talk business", he said.
That was in February of 1956.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to ask a question for information. Was that suggestion made by the railway to the government, or was it merely a suggestion?


Howard Charles Green: This was a suggestion by the chairman of the board of transport commissioners at the hearing at which the C.P.R. was applying for leave to abandon the railway.
Apparently the C.P.R. took no steps after that hearing to arrange for the transfer of the right of way to the provincial government. They may have done it, but no evidence was given in the committee the other day that such had been the case. The final order was not made by the board of transport commissioners until about a month ago, and in that order there was the condition that the C.P.R. must convey the right of way to the provincial government, but there was no provision that they must also pay the provincial government the $75,000. It may be that Mr. Justice Kearney decided that he did not have the power to make any such provision.
Subsequent to the order, the C.P.R. wrote a letter earlier this month to the provincial government initiating the negotiations for the conveyance of the right of way to that government. We were told in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that there had not yet been a reply. Obviously it will take a little time to work out the details of a conveyance by the company to the provincial government. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the title to this right of way, I believe, stands in the name of the Kaslo and Slocan railway company in so far as most of the distance is concerned and, for the other few miles, in the name of the Nakusp and Slocan railway company, being two of the companies which will be wiped out if this bill becomes law.
I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the members of the committee and to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that no harm would come to the C.P.R. if those two companies were dropped from the present bill and included in the bill which will be brought in in 1958. If they follow that course then both the railway and the provincial government will be under considerable pressure to get this question settled and to bring about the construction of a proper highway to replace the railway.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has said that the road at the present time is a very inferior one. One part of it which has

since been changed I think was the most dangerous road in British Columbia.
Many people preferred to walk up rather than drive in a car.
That particular part was changed a few years ago, but this highway as it exists at the present time is not suitable for carrying on the business in the district. There is a lot of logging being done, and of course the main industry is mining. The fact that there is no railway and no proper highway means that mines are shut down which might otherwise be operating. The families in the district have the breadwinners out of work, and it is an extremely serious situation for the people affected. They are a long way from Ottawa and it is just about impossible to overemphasize the difficulties under which they are labouring. In view of the fact that they are in the position where they have no railway and no proper highway, and will have to wait until the C.P.R. makes a transfer to the provincial government and until the provincial government sees fit to build a road, the result may be that nothing will be done for some years, and that would be a great tragedy.
I feel sure that if our suggestion is accepted and these two railway lines are deleted from the bill the practical result will be that the right of way will be conveyed to the provincial government rather quickly, certainly much more quickly than it would be in the normal course of events. That being the case the responsibility will be with the provincial government, and this parliament will at least have done its part. If the provincial government does not move to put in a highway, no one here can be held responsible. The very least we can do, Mr. Chairman, is to remove these two lines from the bill, thereby showing that we feel that the order made by Mr. Justice Kearney should be carried out without any further delay.
I hope the sponsor of the bill will again place this suggestion before the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. From their attitude in the committee the other day I do not believe they would be heartbroken if these two companies were deleted. Naturally they would probably prefer to have the bill go through just as presented, but I do not think they will worry very much if the two companies are taken out and brought back next year. I do hope they will see fit to fall in with the suggestion that has been made.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word concerning this bill. When it was brought before the committee the sponsor did not seem inclined to favour the deletion of these roads from the

bill. As I listened to the discussion in committee and the debate we have had today I have been wondering it the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would serve the purpose they have in mind. Both hon. gentlemen indicated that they wished to hasten the time when construction of the highway would get under way, and I support them to the fullest extent in their desire. I think there should be no undue delay in the construction of the highway to accommodate these people. I might point out that at the present time the government of British Columbia is doing a marvellous job in the construction of highways wherever it is possible to build them. In view of the rapidity and aggressiveness with which British Columbia is dealing with these problems I would think the construction of this highway would certainly be under consideration.
I do not advance this argument to offset in any way the amendment which will be proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West, but it does run in my mind that if the two roads were deleted from the bill at this time the result would be to delay construction of the highway for another two or three years. If we withdraw this section from the bill the result will be that a delay will occur in the transferring of the title of the right of way to the provincial government, and it is doubtful whether this action would hasten the construction of a highway to accommodate these people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh, no.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would be the result of your amendment. I would like to ask the sponsor of the bill a question. Has the British Columbia government been in contact with the department or with the board of transport commissioners concerning the deletion of this section from the bill? We are in committee, and perhaps the hon. member could reply at this time. Has there been any communication between British Columbia and the board of transport commissioners with regard to deleting this section from the bill?


George James McIlraith: I would have no means of knowing that but I am quite unaware of any. You will recall that the order became operative as of February 1. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company wrote a letter to the provincial government under date of February 6 dealing with the actual turning over of the right of way. An acknowledgment has come in under date of February 14 stating that a further reply would be forthcoming. Presumably the further reply merely has to do with certain materials that are to be retained by the railway company.
Private Bills


Charles Edward Johnston: There has been no objection raised by the British Columbia government?


George James McIlraith: Not as far as the C.P.R. is concerned. There would be no occasion to object, as a matter of fact. I do not see how they could object to it.


Charles Edward Johnston: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, there should not be too much haste in trying to put this bill through at the moment. Another two or three days' delay in passing this bill might give us time enough to receive some communication from the British Columbia government indicating their attitude in this respect. We should learn if the recommendation of Mr. Justice Kearney whereby the railway would return $75,000 to the government of British Columbia will have any effect in hastening the construction of the highway. My understanding is that the railway has not been in operation since 1952-


Howard Charles Green: 1955.


Charles Edward Johnston: -when the bridges were washed out, and it does not seem to me the railway is going to reconstruct the bridges. It appears they are using that as one of the excuses for not carrying on the operation of the line. I suppose their attitude is that there would be no point, since they would be abandoned anyway and so they will not spend the money for the reconstruction of the bridges. I believe the committee would be well advised to let the bill stand at this stage for a day or so, until there can be some confirmation of the position of the British Columbia government and its relationship with the C.P.R. in the transfer of this title to the provincial government.
I do not think we should be too hasty and act before we are a little clearer as to what is going to happen. We would like to see the people in this area have some sort of outlet. While I am not too familiar with the particular area, from what the two previous speakers have indicated it is necessary to have some sort of communication between the different localities and some way of getting out of these places. I think it would be a good suggestion to just report progress on this until we have a little further information.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should deal with the remarks of the hon. gentlemen in the order in which they were made. I must say that I found the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West so interesting and delightful that I wondered how quickly we would have the experience of finding all members of the House of Commons wanting to visit the two beautiful towns

Private Bills
in his constituency. I was quite carried away with his description of the beauty of the area which I have no doubt was quite right.
The difficulty in the matter stems from the fact that the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has no relevancy to the bill before the committee. I have no doubt that the people in the area are greatly concerned about having a proper highway in the area, and I did not want to prevent their case being stated by raising a point of order. Now that it has been so very adequately stated by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I think I owe a duty to them to point out that what the bill does is to vest all the undertakings, rights and privileges and so on in the Canadian Pacific Bailway. The two railway companies under discussion are wholly-owned subsidiaries and the Canadian Pacific must assume all obligations.


Howard Charles Green: Does the bill not also dissolve one of those companies?


George James McIlraith: As I said, the Canadian Pacific must assume all the obligations of the subsidiary companies, even if the subsidiary companies are dissolved by the act. The people in that area will have to deal with the person who has leased the railway, who owns all the stock of the wholly-owned subsidiary, and against whom this order was made. The hon. members omitted to point out that the order was made against the Canadian Pacific Railway. Incidentally that order is signed by Hon. John D. Kearney.
I presume the committee would wish to have the terms of the order rather than only a report in a newspaper made a year or so ago. The order is quite clear. It makes the abandonment of the operation of part of the railway line under discussion dependent upon the conveying of the right of way of a designated piece to the province of British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have the exact terms of the order?


George James McIlraith: I could read the exact language.


Mr. Barnell:: How is it that the board of transport commissioners can order the Canadian Pacific to transfer to the government of British Columbia a right of way which belongs to another railway company?


George James McIlraith: They can do it for two reasons. The first is that the Canadian Pacific leased the right of way from the subsidiary for a long term of years. The Canadian Pacific is the owner of all the capital stock of the subsidiary companies.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I can understand the board of transport commissioners allowing the Canadian Pacific to abandon the operation of the line but I cannot see how the terms of an order to transfer a right of way would relate to the Canadian Pacific rather than the owners of the railway.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can clarify that a bit. The order permits the abandonment of a portion of the railway conditional on the reconveying of the right of way. In other words if the right of way is not reconveyed then they cannot abandon the line.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does that mean the railway will have to reconstruct these bridges?


George James McIlraith: Yes it would. Perhaps I could read the order into the record as it is fairly short.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


George James McIlraith: If I have agreement I would ask that the preamble be included in the record and then I will read the operational part.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: It reads:
In the matter of the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as lessee exercising the franchises of the Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company and of the Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company, for an order granting it leave to abandon the operation of that portion of the line known as the Kaslo subdivision of Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Kaslo and Denver Canyon, including the Sandon branch between Parapet and Sandon, all in the province of British Columbia, as applied for in the application dated September 15, 1955:
Upon hearing the application at a sitting of the board at Nelson, British Columbia, on January 30th, 1956, in the presence of counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for the attorney general of the province of British Columbia and Kaslo board of trade, Slocan district board of trade, Nakusp chamber of commerce, the city of Kaslo and the villages of New Denver and Silverton and for Cody Reco Mines Limited: and upon consideration of the submissions on file and for reasons which will be given in a written judgment at a later date-
It is hereby ordered as follows:
1. The abandonment of operation of the said Sandon branch between Parapet and Sandon is approved.
2. The abandonment of operation of the said railway line between Kaslo and Denver Canyon, other than the said Sandon branch, is approved, subject to the condition that as soon as the said operation is abandoned Canadian Pacific Railway Company shall reconvey to the crown, in the right of the province of British Columbia, all its right, title and interest in and to the railway right of way of the said line between Kaslo and Parapet.
3.	Neither the abandonment of operation approved in paragraph numbered 1 hereof nor the

conditional abandonment of operation approved in paragraph numbered 2 shall take place earlier than the 1st day of February 1957.
John D. Kearney,
Chief Commissioner,
The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: I presume the business on Monday will be private members' resolutions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct. If private members' business should be concluded or
Business of the House
adjourned the government would reserve the right to take up any bill on the order paper.


Howard Charles Green: It has been the custom to indicate in what order the bills might be taken up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The farm loan bill, the exchequer court bill, the amendment to Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act, and the fisheries resolution. That would not necessarily be the order for Tuesday, however.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.﻿1598
[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. Van Horne: Are steps being taken to build a Canadian National Railways station and/or warehouse at Edmundston, New Brunswick, this year, in accordance with plans completed in 1956 for construction in 1957?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Marler (Minister
of Transport):
The capital budget for 1957 of the Canadian National Railways not yet having been presented to parliament, it is considered it would be premature to make any announcement regarding plans for the year.
ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND TREATMENT-* DEFICIENCY DISEASES

Question No. 177-Mr. MacKenzie:
1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare taking any action toward the prevention and treatment of accidents, especially among children, involving poisoning from household remedies and chemicals?
2.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare provide any assistance to the general practitioner in meeting the problem of deficiency diseases such as scurvy and rickets?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1. Yes. The food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare has collected data on the chemical composition of thousands of types and brands of household chemicals sold in Canada, including the name of the article, the manufacturer's
name and address, the dangerous ingredients, information to assist in diagnosis, antidotes, and methods of treatment.
Information has been prepared in a convenient form for ready reference and distribution to hospitals and other appropriate medical centres in the provinces to assist in the prompt treatment of accidental poisoning.
A pamphlet has also been prepared by the department warning parents about careless storage or handling of medicines and giving precautions to be observed when administering them to children. The pamphlet points as well to many other household chemicals as sources of danger.
The food and drug directorate plans to collect additional information about the number of accidental poisonings in Canada with a view to further careful study of this problem.
2. Yes. The nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare maintains for the purpose of its nutrition surveys a laboratory equipped to determine the levels of various nutrients in very small blood samples. Since such laboratories are rare in Canada, the facilities of the nutrition division laboratory have been made available to all physicians.
Frozen blood samples are shipped to Ottawa for analyses for specific nutrients. The original arrangements are made between the provincial laboratories and the Department of National Health and Welfare but in practice the samples are usually shipped directly by the doctor to the nutrition division laboratory.
This service, which is relatively new, is being used increasingly by doctors in different parts of Canada. During the past year over 150 blood samples were sent in for analyses.

Monday, February 25, 1957