[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Isnor.	.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that I invited my friends the leader of the opposition and the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties to meet with me yesterday afternoon at five o'clock to see if we could not together work out a plan that might help to expedite the business of the session. I am happy to say that all were agreed that if hon. members would lend their support it would be advisable to have the house meet from two o'clock until six and from seven until eleven each day from tomorrow until the end of the session. There was some consideration of the question of beginning morning sittings, but it was thought that at least for the present hon. members would prefer to meet for a longer number of hours in the afternoon and evening and have the morning free. If we are hard pressed to get through at the time we hope it may be possible to get through, we shall consider the possibility of meeting on Saturdays as well.
I may say that this plan has back of it the hope and, possibly, the expectation that if all hon. members cooperate we might be able to wind up the business of the house towards the end of the first week of July. That will depend altogether on cooperation between the different parties and the support of their members in the house. To that end we have considered what were the most important measures still on the order paper and the general wish that they should be brought forward as soon as possible. My colleague, the house leader, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) announced last night that there would be two important measures proceeded with today, the resolution of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) respecting industrial relations and investigation of industrial disputes, and the resolution to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. How far we can proceed with these measures will depend upon the general consent the house may be prepared to give.
It was thought it would best suit the convenience of hon. members and help to expedite business if we reserved Wednesday evenings and all day on Fridays for the consideration of estimates. By knowing in advance that no government measures other than supply would be taken up on Wednesday evenings and on Fridays hon. members would be in a better position so to arrange their time as to give it to those matters in which they are most interested. On Mondays, it was felt we might take up any measures that are on the order paper. It would not however be the purpose of the government to bring forward on Mondays the most important measures.
I think that covers pretty much the line of agreement that we reached in the course of our conference.
There is a small bill which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is interested in bringing before the house as soon as possible, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932, and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932, notice of which appears in the Votes and Proceedings. In order to have it presented to the house today the house would have to give its unanimous consent. If that
House of Commons

can be given the Minister of Finance will introduce that bill first thing this afternoon.
With respect to some of the measures I have mentioned there was also the feeling that if we could have it generally agreed that the discussion would take place on the bills rather than on the resolutions that would greatly expedite the business.
There appears in the Votes and Proceedings of today, Mr. Speaker, a motion that the house meet tomorrow at two o'clock and from then on until the end of the session along the lines I have indicated. As the notice of motion appears there is some lack of punctuation or a small hiatus in printing that might mislead the members, but I will read the motion as it would appear if correctly punctuated and will ask that it be presented to the house immediately. Under the rules of the house this motion does not require any notice:
That on and after Wednesday, June 18 instant, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at two o'clock p.m. of each sitting day; and at six o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair until seven o'clock, all notwithstanding any standing order or resolution of the house in relation thereto.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has had to say was I think a correct summary of the conference which took place yesterday afternoon. On behalf of this party 1 wish to say that we are prepared to support the motion he has just now moved. My understanding of that conference was that on one important measure there will be no debate at the resolution stage, namely, the old age pensions resolution, but that the debate will take place on the second reading of the bill. I do not know that we were quite so definite with respect to other measures, but on that particular measure there was that definite decision.
Might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government give early consideration to the question whether some measures now before us cannot be dropped from this year's programme in order still further to expedite the business of the house. That question was raised yesterday but did not reach any finality.
I leave the suggestion with the government to see what they can do in that respect. Motion agreed to.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) presented the second report of the

special joint committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
MR. MACKENZIE-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN DEBATE ON JUNE 11*
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I wish to raise a question of privilege. The other day in the course of a debate, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) I said that Mr. Ferland had been dismissed from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I regret to say that it was a misstatement of fact. He was on sick leave and personally tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the department. In fairness to him I think I should make this correction.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: With the unanimous consent of the house I should like to move for leave to introduce Bill No. 337, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932, and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.


Mr. CHURCH:: Will the minister explain it?


Mr. KNOWLES:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This bill if passed will authorize insurance companies to invest in the securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I may say that various states of the union which have jurisdiction in these matters are taking similar action to authorize their insurance companies so to invest.


Thomas Langton Church: Does the superintendent of insurance recommend it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOREST CONSERVATION

[Stage Direction]
EASTERN SLOPE OF ROCKY MOUNTAINS-[DOT] AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, for the Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to approve a certain agreement between the dominion
*See p. 4110, June 11

Inquiries of the Ministry
of Canada and the government of Alberta respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains and to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of sums required for capital expenditures, payments to the province of moneys for formulated programmes carried out by the province, salaries of officers and employees appointed under the act and expenses incidental to the operation of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: On the 4th of June the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) inquired respecting delay in the delivery of mail for Telegraph Creek, B.C. I took the question as a notice, and the answer is as follows: I have now established that the difficulty in this case arose from the change-over from winter to summer routing of mail for Telegraph Creek. In the winter, mail for that post office is dispatched from Vancouver to Carcross, Yukon, whence it is forwarded by air stage service to destination. In the summer the mail is dispatched to Wrangell, Alaska, whence it is forwarded by river boat to Telegraph Creek. The last air stage flight from Car-cross to Telegraph Creek for the winter season was made on April 2, and mail dispatched to Carcross on April 8 and 19 had to be reforwarded from the latter point to Wrangell to connect with the river boat to Telegraph Creek. Since April 30, mail for Telegraph Creek has been regularly forwarded via Wrangell.



WINNIPEC-FLIN FLON AIR MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. R. S. MOORE (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Have Canadian Pacific Air Lines approached the Post Office Department for an air mail contract for their new air line from Winnipeg to Flin Flon. via Dauphin and The Pas? If so, can the minister advise whether or not such a contract will be awarded?


Ernest Bertrand: The answer to the first question is yes. As to the second question, we are studying the terms of the contract now.



INQUIRY AS TO PRICE OF CLASS 2 IN LAST TWO MONTHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At what prices has class 2 wheat been sold by the wheat board during the last two weeks?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for Selkirk gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. The price of class 2 wheat, that is the so-called world price based on the United States price, has continued to decline and dropped five cents yesterday. Since May 28 the price has fallen 56 cents per bushel, as will be noted from the following chart:
May 28 ...	Price of Class II Wheat, basis No. 1. Northern 	 $3.06
May 29 ...	2.99
May 31 . ..		 2.89
June 2 .,		 2.79
June 3 ...		 2.78
June 5 . .,		 2.76
June 7 . .,		 2.72
June 10 ...		 2.64
June 11 ..		 2.59
June 12 ...		 2.58
June 13 . ..		 2.56
June 14 ..		 2.55
June 16 . .		 2.50'
There was	no change in the price today.



REQUISITIONING FOR UNITED KINGDOM CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the uncertainty which exists among the cheese producers in regard to government policy concerning United Kingdom cheese contracts, will the minister inform the house whether cheese will or will not be requisitioned for these contracts during the current year? A clear statement of government policy at this time would contribute substantially-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Earle Drope: -to the stability of all phases of the Canadian dairy industry during the uncertain period ahead.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The question just asked was raised on my estimates last night at about half a minute to eleven o'clock. When I get back on my estimates we will discuss it.
Industrial Disputes



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

[Stage Direction]
INVESTIGATION, CONCILIATION AND SETTLEMENT *-PROVISION FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, ETC.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
_ That it is expedient to present a bill respecting industrial relations and investigation of industrial disputes and to make provision therein for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the remuneration and expenses of the members of the boards and commissions and the officers, clerks and employees appointed or engaged by or under the authority of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. MITCHELL:: This bill is intended to replace the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, chapter 112, revised statutes of Canada. 1927, which had been the main federal labour law from 1907 until February, 1944, when by order in council we suspended the operation of the act and gave effect to P.C. 1003, commonly known as the wartime labour relations regulations.
Last year we had a conference with ministers of labour of the various provinces and their officials, at which we discussed the more important principles of a new federal law- and, I may add, in a very encouraging atmosphere of cooperation.
The chief purpose of the conference, of course, was to obtain the views of the provinces as to when it would be most appropriate to restore to the provinces full responsibility for dealing with industrial disputes in industries ordinarily under their jurisdiction.
As hon. members know, the provinces resumed their full jurisdiction in these matters, some on March 31 and others on May 15. The bill now before the house applies only to employees and employers in industries under the jurisdiction of parliament, as follows:
(a)	Works, undertakings or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada;
(b)	Railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(c)	Lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province;

(d)	Ferries between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada;
(e)	Aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation;
(f)	Radio broadcasting stations;
(g)	Such works or undertakings as, although wholly situate within a province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and
(h)	Any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislature of any province.
The act will apply also to crown corporations unless excluded by the governor in council.
P.C. 1003 was found to be of great value in contributing to stable labour relations during the critical war years and since, and we have included in the new legislation the best features of that order, changed in some respects and amplified in others, based upon the experience gained in its administration. We have also taken into consideration more recent representations which have been made to us by the provinces and by labour and employer organizations.
I believe the committee will agree with me that it is most important we should have an act for the settlement of industrial disputes which will be fair to the worker and employer alike and that will make possible the equitable and sensible adjustment of differences between them.
The legislation provides what I consider are appropriate procedures and conciliation machinery to deal with disputes of this character affecting undertakings over which parliament has legislative authority. It establishes procedures for the negotiation of collective agreements on wages and other terms of employment, giving the employees the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining without interference and to be represented in negotiations by a trade union of their own choice.
In disputes arising out of the negotiation of collective agreements, strikes and lockouts and the taking of strike votes among employees are prohibited until the procedures of negotiation and conciliation laid down in the act have been completely followed. Strikes and lockouts also are prohibited during the time that a collective agreement is in effect, except where the parties have agreed to renegotiate a provision of the agreement before the whole agreement terminates. In any

Industrial Disputes
case of renegotiation the provisions for such conciliation which I have mentioned would apply.
The provisions of part I of the act are capable of being applied, by provincial legislation, to all or any particular industry within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
In other words, we have tried to set a pattern which some of the provinces may care to apply knowing that we shall not be moving as rapidly as we should towards the goal of industrial peace in this country if we have widely varying legislation of this nature in the spheres of dominion and provincial operation.
The unfair labour practices section of the act will prohibit discrimination by employers against employees on account of trade union membership or activity or interference by them in the organization and carrying on of a trade union. Likewise it will be unlawful for any person to use coercion to compel anyone to become, or not to become, a member of a trade union. Trade union organizing work in a plant during working hours is prohibited except with the consent of the employer.
The question of certification of a trade union is, of course, important, and the act provides that a union may obtain recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of employees if it satisfies the labour relations board that its membership represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit which the board also has the authority to define.
The board may order a secret vote where it is considered necessary. In order to take care of a jurisdictional dispute between unions, provision is made for a new certification to be granted if application is made after the expiry of ten months of the term of a collective agreement.
An employees' organization dominated by an employer is not recognized under the act, and there also is a provision revoking the authority of a union to serve as the exclusive bargaining agent when it is shown that the union has lost the support of the majority of the employees.
Once a union has been certified as a bargaining agent, the parties are required to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of a collective agreement. If they cannot settle matters between themselves, then the act requires them to obtain the conciliation services of the Department of Labour. If that fails, a conciliation board may be appointed by the Minister of Labour upon the request of either party. This applies to the renegotiation of existing agreements.
An important provision of the act prohibits an employer declaring a lockout, employees
going on strike, the taking of a strike vote or the declaration of a strike until all conciliation procedures have been exhausted and fourteen days have elapsed.
Parties negotiating a collective agreement are required to include in the agreement an appropriate provision for final settlement by arbitration or otherwise, without stoppage of work, of disputes which arise between the employees who are bound by the agreement and their employer during the currency of the agreement, concerning the meaning or violation of the agreement. Where an agreement does not contain such provision, the labour relations board is authorized to write it into the agreement.
A further provision of the act authorizes the appointment by the Minister of Labour of an industrial disputes inquiry commission of one or more persons for the purpose of looking into any industrial dispute and to report thereon. This provision is similar to the provisions of P.C. 4020, an order in council which was extensively used during the war.
For administrative purposes, it is proposed that we establish what will be known as the Canada labour relations board, to be composed of a chairman and not more than eight other members equally representative of labour and employers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have received representations for the inclusion of measures severely curtailing union activities; from others have come suggestions which would involve, under certain conditions, the compulsory application of the principle of union security in collective agreements and the adoption of other innovations.
We have not given effect in this legislation to such representations, since it is not the desire of the government to place impediments in the way of free collective bargaining between employers and their organized workers, or to legislate conditions or terms of employment that properly lie in the field of collective bargaining.
The essential purpose of the legislation is to create conditions favourable to the free exercise of the collective bargaining function in order that negotiations between the parties to a dispute can be carried on with the greatest degree of success.
For that reason, only such regulation of employer and employee activity in their industrial relationships considered as necessary to protect the public interest is incorporated in the legislation. It leaves with labour and management the major responsibility of settling between them their problems in regard to negotiation of collective
Industrial Disputes

agreements and administration of such agreements.
It has long been my view that legislation of this nature will fail in its fundamental objective if it introduces features of a punitive and coercive character which could only result in driving employers and employees further apart. That would make it more difficult for them to establish those friendly relations of good will and cooperation which are so necessary.
Human nature cannot be corrected by a law, and in the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, the major consideration in improving human relations between employers and employees is the simple matter of trying to see each other's point of view and developing mutual understanding.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the
minister one or two questions, the answers to which I think it is only proper that the committee should have, with regard to the legislation now before us. The act used to be called the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act; it is now changed by having the word "relations" added to it. It is to be called the Industrial Relations and Investigation of Industrial Disputes Act. So far, so good. But does this statute apply to public utilities? Some of the utilities are publicly-owned, such as those having to do with light, power and transportation. For instance, there are the street railways. A strike may occur next winter, for one of many reasons, in the light or power services shutting off power or light at a time when meals are being prepared. In view of the decision of the privy council in the Snider case, it is doubtful whether the dominion has jurisdiction over some classes of public utilities such as those having to do with power. If we are to make any change in the remuneration of these boards, we should have value for the money expended. In view of the difficulties we have had during the war and after, may I ask if the act will be made effective by any change of name? Is it a mandatory act? Does it compel the two sides to come together? Why should the citizens of the city of Ottawa or of any other city suffer because of a strike brought against the public? In view of the changes now made in the act, and of the wide discussions in Washington on the subject, are we getting some proper method of bringing the parties together, which we should have, when the law is brought into force?


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution carry?	*


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to hear what the minister has to say about the question I raised.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can answer my hon. friend in two minutes. I think I have a recollection of what he called the Snider case. That was some twenty years ago. The industries referred to by my hon. friend of course come purely within provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I understand that any general debate in this matter is to take place on second reading; in that I most heartily concur. Speaking for most of the party over here, I wish to say that we will not debate the matter now, but will reserve our rights until the bill comes up for second reading.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I was going to say very much the same thing. I regret that this measure is brought forward so late in the session. It is an important measure which we think-and I speak now on behalf of my party-should be proceeded with after thorough examination by an appropriate committee of the house. In order that the bill may be studied and1 the principle understood, I suggest to the minister that we proceed with the resolution and give the bill first reading today but defer second reading until the next sitting.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: As far as this group is concerned, we appreciate having this legislation brought down, although it is late in the session to have such an important piece of legislation brought down. I understand that after second reading the bill will be referred to the committee on industrial relations and there will be given a thorough going-over. Having that in mind, and also the understanding that no discussion was to take place until the second reading, we shall allow it to go through to that stage.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mitchell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 338, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

United Nations
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Pensions Act which will enlarge the scope of the act by providing increases in the pension payable and the income allowable to pensioners and by modifying certain of the eligibility requirements for pension.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Martin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. FLEMING:: Will the bill be distributed forthwith?


Mr. MARTIN:: I understand the arrangement made-and the leader of the house will correct me if I am wrong-was that the bill be given first reading today and I would move second reading tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about distribution of the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill will be distributed before the day is out. I imagine it should be distributed now that we have had first reading.


John Bracken: That is the question the hon. member asked, if the bill would be distributed now. That will be necessary; otherwise, we cannot proceed with second reading tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be distributed shortly, today.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 272, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the united nations and related international organizations.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I believe it is inadvisable that this bill be now read the second time. I think it requires a great deal more study than we have yet given to it.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It is suggested that it is to be sent to the committee on external affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: Has that been suggested, that the bill go to the committee on external affairs?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it not possible to refer the bill to the committee on external affairs before it is given second reading? I suggest that this be done, because if the house gives the bill second reading it approves the principle and thereby limits in large measure the authority of the committee on external affairs to discuss the bill in detail.
I would urge that the bill be referred to the committee for careful study, before it is given second reading, and I would oppose giving it second reading now.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not for the Speaker to give direction to the house as to what it should do. The motion is for the second reading of Bill No. 272, and after second reading is given it is the practice to put the motion to go into committee of the whole.


John Horne Blackmore: But I desire that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs before it is given second reading, in order to give that committee greater latitude for discussion of the details of the bill and their implications.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): If I might say a word in regard to the practice of parliament, when we were over there some years ago the Bank of Canada Act was introduced. We were bitterly opposed to the bill, but we allowed it to be given second reading, reserving all our rights, because the bill was to be referred immediately to a committee. That is exactly what my hon. friend has the right to do now; but the proper practice is to have second reading given by the house; with reservations, and the bill referred to the appropriate committee.


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if the Minister of Veterans Affairs would specify what thosefights are. It seems to me his suggestion is good, but what rights would be reserved? For example, we could not reserve the right-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: My hon. friend can reserve full freedom of discussion for whatever members of his group or party are on that committee, to criticize the bill and, if they can, defeat it in committee. That is what we did in regard to the Bank of Canada Act.


John Horne Blackmore: Does that mean freedom to discuss it in detail in the committee on external affairs or in committee of the whole?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At this time I am moving second reading of the bill, for the purpose of then moving that it be referred to the committee on external affairs. My under-
United Nations

standing is that in that committee the whole matter can be gone into. The committee will then make a report to the house, and the whole matter can then be gone into again here. The house will not be bound in any way by the report of the committee. The standing order provides that a bill cannot be sent to a committee until it has received second reading. The subject matter can be sent to a committee, but in practice that involves killing the bill. Here the motion is that the bill receive second reading. When that is given I will move that it go to the committee on external affairs, where there can be a full and complete examination of its provisions. There will be a report from the committee, or no report. If the committee finds that this is a bill which should not be passed, it will not report it, and the bill will die there. If on the other hand the committee feels that it should, receive further consideration, the bill will come back here and will have to come up in committee of the whole house where every provision can be examined, discussed and debated. I am quite sure the hon. member will not be deprived of any rights whatever by this procedure, which was suggested in our conference as the most practical and expeditious way of dealing with the subject matter.


John Horne Blackmore: This would mean. I take it, that in committee the full discussion could take place on clause one of the bill. Is that the point? I just want to be sure, because when the bill comes back to this house the chairman can do a person a tremendous amount of damage by just riding him every step of the way. I want to be sure to be able to discuss every aspect of this matter.
Mr. ST. LAURENT. I have never known the hon. member to be prevented from speaking his mind in this house ,and I am sure there will be no occasion or opportunity for that to happen in connection with this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: It will be on clause
1?


James Horace King: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to have that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are on the motion for second reading of the bill. He knows perfectly well that a member is entitled to rise only once. I cannot permit a debate between the hon. gentleman and the minister at this stage. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	What the right hon. Secretary of
State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) has said is perfectly right. We can send this bill to the committee on external affairs or any other committee only after it is given-second reading. Then if it is reported by the committee it may come before the committee of the whole house, as the minister said would be done. On the other hand the right hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) expressed a wrong view when he said the giving of second reading would not be an acceptance of the principle of the bill. I remember very well what happened in regard to the precedent the minister quoted, the Bank of Canada Act. The parties were unanimous in accepting the principle of that bill, because it was one of the fourteen points of the Liberal party which Mr. Bennett had stolen. So there was no disagreement as to the principle, which was admitted by the whole house.
Here the question is obvious. This is one case where we will have to decide whether we shall have world government or keep the constitution of this country. That and nothing else is the obvious question. It is part of the scheme to bring Canada under the dominion and jurisdiction of a world government. Where it will stop I do not know. This is a theory which has been expressed by some leading men of the world, that we should be governed by a super-administration belonging to all the big powers. I am opposed to that, in the first place because I do not believe that the right of justice belongs to the so-called big powers. That is the first thing. In the second place I do not believe the big powers have been so successful or have shown such good results in what they have done up to the present. In the third place, if things go on like this I am afraid this country will be the trailer of alii the other countries of the world, and we in this parliament will be just rubber stamps.
If we are to keep the constitution as it is we cannot accept this kind of government. I am very sorry to have to rise and express personal views about this matter, but they come from deep convictions. If I had not a deep conviction, the constitution being what it is and what it has been for eighty years,
I would leave it at that, close my eyes and let it pass.
I do not want to detain the house by making a long speech. If human rights exist, if we in this house intend to apply them to all other nations, then we cannot forget that one of those rights is freedom of speech. Shall we

United Nations
still have that right with an organization like that? They do not have freedom of speech in Russia; they hardly have freedom of speech in France, and they do not have it in China. They still have it in the United States, as in England, but we know nothing about the future. I say all this with the most friendly disposition.
Do hon. members realize the immunities that are to be given to the representatives of all the specialized agencies of the united nations? The list is formidable; it is enormous. The other day I asked for that information, and the right hon. minister who is sponsoring the bill was kind enough to give me a copy of it. Here they are:
Representatives of members to the principal and subsidiary organs-
Not only the principal, but also the subsidiary organs.
-of the united nations and to conferences convened by the united nations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
(a)	immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives. immunity from legal process of every kind;
(b)	inviolability for all papers and documents ;
(c)	the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence 'by courier or in sealed bags;
(d)	exemption in respect of themselves and their spouses from immigration restrictions, aliens registration or national service obligations in the state they are visiting or through which they are passing in the exercise of their functions;
(e)	the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions;
(f)	the same immunities and facilities in respect of their personal baggage as are accorded to diplomatic envoys; and also,
(g)	such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy, except that they shall have no right to claim exemption from customs duties on goods imported (otherwise than as part of their personal baggage) or from excise duties or sales taxes.
They can bring in as many trunks as they wish without paying any duty. When they are in the country they cannot import goods from their own or other countries free of customs duties, but that is the only difference from fully accredited diplomats. That is going pretty far. My deep regret is that the united nations are following the same lines as the old defunct league of nations. No imagination is being shown, and we are much worse off than before because all these people who belong, not only to the specialized agencies
but to their subsidiaries, will have the same rights as ministers and ambassadors.
Quite often I express personal views, but they are sincere. Sometimes I have the support of hon. members of my party; sometimes I have the support of all groups of the opposition, but in this case I want to congratulate publicly the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) upon the foresight they showed when we were in the resolution stage. We may differ at times, but opinions are free. The hon. gentlemen to whom I have just referred meant what they said, as I did. We were sincere in this matter. We gave a solemn warning to the government not to be caught in the web of the united nations.
I entertain great fears about these people, for the reasons that I have given. I do not trust most of them. Nobody trusts them individually, but when it comes to considering them jointly we are all ready to accept anything from them. How is it that when we will not accept the form of super-government they have, we are ready to accept orders and instructions given by those governments? We may trust a few of these governments, but we do not trust all of them. The majority of the big powers have governments that we would not accept. We would not accept the government of Russia, the government of China or the present unstable government of France. With regard to the socialistic government of England and the capitalistic government of the United States, there are differences of opinion. In the case of three out of five they have governments which we would not accept in this country. I challenge any group to say that they would accept any of those three governments. Yet they represent a majority in the government of the united nations. Small nations like Canada will have no say.
We will see caravans of members of specialized agencies and their subsidiaries crossing Canada and living here, and they will be quite free as long as they can show credentials given by any country. The deep fear I have is that it will encourage spying. Their belongings will be untouchable, and it will be impossible to verify what papers they may have because they will be under diplomatic seal just the same as those of ambassadors, ministers and high commissioners. They will be given special privileges, and I am against special privileges. It is all right to receive the representatives of foreign countries, but what about international organizations that are most dangerous? The control of those organizations, and even the control of the united
United, Nations

nations, may be taken over by one of the three dangerous governments I have mentioned.
I want to make myself clear: I do not condemn the people of the big five countries, but I entertain fears about their governments. I would remind the house that the song of Soviet Russia is "The Internationale". The idea of Russia is to create that kind of feeling which will destroy patriotism in all other nations. Then when there is no more patriotism we shall have an international organization where right counts no longer and where might is always right. Those powers will try in their own way to take control of the united nations and establish communism throughout the world. Canada does not count before the united nations. It may count socially but not politically.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Or economically.


Mr. POULIOT:: Economically when it
comes to giving, but not receiving. Here we are with this new world plan which I have opposed from the start and which I shall continue to oppose as a Liberal who loves his country and does not want the domination of the united nations.


John Horne Blackmore: All honour to you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say that because I am opposed to Russia or some other country, but I do find that the government of Russia is one that I would not support by my vote if I were a Russian, and as only one vote is given in that country I would abstain from voting, to my great regret.
I hope the members will think of these things. I hope I have expressed myself clearly. I warn the house, I warn you, sir, I warn the cabinet and all my colleagues of the dangers of this policy.
After the last war we heard the same kind of speeches we are hearing today; but then it was about the league of nations, and not only the league of nations, but the Briand-Kellogg pact, which was signed by the Prime Minister of Canada after Sir Robert Borden had signed the treaty of Versailles. Those treaties were official treaties binding the signatory nations to maintain peace throughout the world, and they turned out to be scraps of paper. We hear no more about the Briand-Kellogg pact; we hear no more about the Versailles treaty.
There is a complete lack of imagination in those who want to establish this new world policy. History repeats itself, history with all its failures. Now we are confronted with the danger of a powerful. organization of the few
[-Mr. Pouliot.]	,
impairing the sovereignty of the many small powers, the so-called small nations.
When I speak in my own constituency my speeches are not longer than the one I have just made. I let my constituents finish them by thinking of what I have said to them and drawing their own conclusions. I always tell them: Do not accept blindly what I tell you. Think about it, and if you think I am right, support me. If you think I am wrong, tell me, but tell me why.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken earnestly and I need your protection. This debate is much more in conformity with the human rights theory than the discussion we had when, the resolution came before the house. It was pitiful at that time and very sad to see my hon. friends the members for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and myself unable to ask questions that we had a right to ask. I draw your attention to that, sir, and I hope that on future occasions the discussion in the committee, when we ask questions, will be on a higher level and will be similar to the debate we are having now.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw my opposition to this measure, because I do not think the united nations will amount to anything anyway, and the immunities may never be used. I have not the faith in that organization that the minister and other members of the house have because you have given a first-class power, Russia, the right to veto everything UNO does. Mr. Bevin and Mr. Marshall are going outside of the united nations organization, as they did at Paris and at Moscow. Mr. Bevin has made an arrangement with France, and Mr. Marshall proposed "economic unity" for the whole of Europe, outside of the united nations. The Japanese treaty is to be handled outside of the united nations organization altogether by Mr. Bevin and Mr. Marshall. This organization is going to wind up like the league of nations. It is merely going to postpone things and nothing will be done for next winter. But as long as we belong to the organization I suppose we have to accord to them these privileges and immunities, and I have no objection to that. The organization will shortly die a natural death as the first league did.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I shall delay the house for just a moment to put the position of my group squarely before the house. We do not like this bill. We think this is the booby trap that

United Nations
has been set for the government of Canada to walk straight into, and we are determined to see that they do not do it and get completely softened up so that they can be easily gathered into this web of the united nations that is strangling us and dragging us forward to world government. . That is why we want a full and free discussion of this bill at some stage. The only concern we have is whether or not on section 1 of the bill we shall have ample latitude to discuss any feature of it we desire. If we have that undertaking we shall not delay the house further at this stage, but we certainly want perfect freedom in committee to discuss in the fullest possible manner any matter concerning or relating to this bill. We would like to reserve all our rights to discuss the bill when it comes back from the committee, because we certainly shall have something to say about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall be only a few minutes. I have refrained from speaking on other matters in which I was interested, and I think I have demonstrated something by that, but in view of the remarks that have been made thus far this afternoon in opposition to this bill I feel that the debate cannot be concluded without something being said on the other side. Therefore, I rise to support whole-heartedly the second reading of this bill.


Mr. LOW:: That is a good reason for opposing it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unity in diversity!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Frequently I find myself in the right, even though in the minority. This time I happen to be in the right, and the majority is with me. The member for Peace River (Mr. Low), in the remarks he has just made, has indicated clearly his reasons, and I believe the reasons of others who have spoken, for his opposition to this measure. It is not just that they are opposed to the granting of these privileges and immunities. It is rather that they are opposed to the structure of the united nations and are afraid that we are heading towards the loss of Canadian sovereignty in a world government.


John Horne Blackmore: We are certain of it. *


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, I have stated the hon. member's position quite correctly.


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly we are running into difficulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact of the matter is that sovereignty, as we know it today in individual nations, simply is not good enough to protect the peace and welfare of the people of the world. The time has come when we must create a larger and wider sovereignty for the protection of mankind.


Solon Earl Low: How about the United States
forces in Canada? *


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, Mr. Speaker, was not a case of creating wider sovereignty. That, in our view, was a case of surrendering our sovereignty to another nation in the government of which we are not represented. But with respect to the united nations the matter is one of creating a new world sovereignty in which we have a very definite voice.


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the measure before the house is not one to create sovereignty for peace. The bill which is before the house is entitled "An Act to provide for privileges and immunities in respect, of the united nations", which is already organized, "and related international organizations" which are already organized. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the principle of the bill which is actually before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I think you have not only given a good ruling but made a good argument in the debate itself. That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make in reply to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon, member for Peace River (Mr. Low)-that what they are opposing is not the bill which is before us but the united nations organization, together with its specialized agencies, which are already set up, and of which Canada is a member, and to which this parliament agreed unanimously.
In deference to Your Honour's ruling I shall cut short my remarks. I contend that we are not surrendering sovereignty; we are creating a new sovereignty for the peace of the world. In the charter of the united nations we have agreed to accept these terms. Article 105 of the charter states that the organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such immunities and privileges as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes. That is the meaning of this bill, and any attempt to defeat it is contrary to the spirit of the charter and would be nothing more or less than an attempt to defeat the purposes of the

Dominion Coal Board

united nations. Such an attempt I regard as a disservice to mankind. For these reasons I think the bill should be passed and the principle approved.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Solon Earl Low: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and1 referred to the standing committee on external affairs.



DOMINION COAL BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to establish a corporation to be known as the dominion coal board to administer subventions or subsidies relating to coal voted by parliament, to exercise and perform certain other powers, duties and functions.
Provision is made further for the advisory functions of the board, for the employment of professional and technical advisers and assistants and their remuneration, and for all expenses of the act to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister make a statement on this resolution?


Mr. HOWE:: Yes. This resolution provides for the establishment of a dominion coal board as a further step towards solving a problem that has been before this house and the people of Canada for the past seventy years. The first report on coal which has come to my notice is by a select committee of the House of Commons, dated April 27, 1877, dealing with "the state of the coal trade and for the promoting of interprovincial trade". That report suggested that bounties and subsidies be granted for the movement of Nova Scotia coal to points in Quebec and Ontario.
The intervening years have produced numerous reports on coal by parliamentary committees, royal commissions, and provincial commissions. The last report on the subject is entitled "Report of the Royal Commission on Coal", which was tabled in this house on January 31, 1947. The report represents months of careful and conscientious study by the commissioners, and I commend it to all members of this house for careful study.
Direct intervention by the government in the production and distribution of coal dates
	'
back to June, 1917, when the government appointed a coal controller to deal with fuel difficulties that were an outgrowth of the war period. At that time it became necessary to make regulations to protect the production, sale, delivery and consumption of all fuels to meet wartime requirements. The final report of the first coal controller, dated March, 1919, stressed the necessity for having a continuing body to deal with coal supplies generally. The dominion fuel board was created by order in council in November, 1922, and since that time has functioned within its original terms of reference. The recent royal commission report states that the powers of the present board are not sufficiently wide in scope to deal with the present problem.
Shortly after the outbreak of the second world war, the government appointed a coal administrator under the wartime prices and trade board, with jurisdiction over the supply, distribution and price of coal. The staff of the dominion fuel board was taken over by the coal administrator. By 1942 the problem of coal supply became of paramount importance and to deal with it the government appointed an emergency coal production board under the chairmanship of the coal administrator. Shortly after this, since supply problems generally were being dealt with by the Departs ment of Munitions and Supply, the duties and responsibilities of the coal administrator were transferred to that department under the direction of a coal controller.
Coal control ended on December 31, 1946, and the functions of coal administration ended with the lifting of the price ceiling on coal on April 15, 1947. At that time, the dominion fuel board was reconstituted and is at present functioning within its original terms of reference.
The government is in full agreement with the recommendation of the royal commission on coal that a dominion coal board be established and charged with the responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the report. The board will take over the records of the dominion fuel board, as well as those of wartime controls, and these will form a valuable background for the work of the new board. I might add that, if proof is needed that these records are valuable, it will be found in the fact that during the period of wartime coal control it was possible to arrange for supplies of coal that maintained full industrial production without one day's loss of time from coal shortage, as well as a full supply to the household consumer.
Much has been said and written about the Canadian coal problem. This is not a single problem-we have many coal problems, differ-

Dominion Coal Board
ing in kind and degree. There is the problem of maintaining an adequate supply of coal for our national requirements, and there is also the problem of building up in Canada a sound and healthy producing industry. There is the problem of finding steady and adequate markets for Canadian coal, and the problem of providing reasonably full employment at fair wages for our miners. Each section of Canada has its own coal problem, differing from that of other sections.
The report of the royal commission on coal accepts the necessity for industries in central Canada to secure the major portion of their coal requirements from the United States. Developments in low cost production and transportation may possibly alter this concept in some measure in the future, but it would appear that for many years industry and households in central Ontario will continue to secure supplies from the nearest source, namely, the immense deposits in the Appalachian field in the United States. However, this finding need not preclude the growing development of a stable and prosperous producing industry within this country; nor need it preclude the provision of an increasing and remunerative field of employment for Canadian coal miners.
The commission has found that the government policy of subventions to assist transportation of coal, arising out of investigations made by a special committee of the House of Commons in 1921, has been both well designed and reasonably adequate, and should be continued. This subvention policy has been directed primarily to the marketing phase of the Canadian coal industry. The problem of providing and maintaining an adequate market for Canadian coal is constantly changing, and does not, by its very nature, lend itself to the establishment of a rigid and invarying policy. Therefore the commission recommends that the present dominion fuel board, composed of civil servants, be replaced by a new statutory body which will serve full time in the administration of present subvention policies and such new measures of assistance as may be required from time to time. In this way the marketing problem will receive the constant attention of a body set up for the purpose. The resolution now under discussion has for its purpose the implementation of this recommendation.
I will now discuss the other main problem, namely, the production of coal throughout Canada at the lowest possible cost. The report of the commission gives the salient features of the operations in each of Canada's main coal fields. In normal times, and during 83166-271J
the war, the industry has been in a healthy state in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta, including the southeast corner of British Columbia. On the other hand operations on Vancouver island, and particularly in the maritine provinces, have not been in a healthy condition for many years. The mines producing industrial and railway coal in the mountain regions in British Columbia have had a particularly good record. The profits of the group are not excessive, but in wages paid, in constant and increasing output, and in efficiency of production, these operations stand out over the general average. The production of domestic coal in Alberta has suffered from seasonal operation, inherent in the nature of the coal, but even under this handicap shows a sound and encouraging record. The lignite coal mines in Saskatchewan have built up by their own efforts a sound and profitable market, and have a record of expansion that is by no means ended. There are few serious problems in the operation of this section of the industry that cannot be solved by the industry itself. The provision of a stable market for the industrial and railway coals is bound up with the general prosperity of the country, but there would appear to be good prospects for the maintenance of an adequate and orderly marketing of the output from this area. The greatest improvement can be effected by developments in research that will solve the present seasonal fluctuations in the production of domestic coal in both Alberta and Saskatchewan. When the solution for this problem can foe found, the freight subvention policy recommended in the commission's report should be adeqaute for this section of the industry.
The coal fields of Vancouver island represent a special problem. The output per man day has been consistently lower than in the mountain and prairie mines, and the market has been restricted and highly competitive as against other fuels, such as oil and wood. For the past four or five years there has been a market for every ton of coal that could be produced, but for a variety of reasons, the mines have not increased their output to meet the challenge. In fact production has gone down, and it has been necessary to sustain operations by means of production subsidies. The ending of production subsidies calls for a reorganized production programme, required to maintain a sound and healthy coal producing industry on Vancouver island.
A still more serious outlook is presented by present conditions in the maritime provinces, and particularly in the Cape Breton area. We have here the largest concentration of the Canadian coal mining industry, located
Dominion Coal Board

in a heavily populated area, that is almost wholly dependent on this industry for means of livelihood. The other large maritime industry, steel, depends for its wellbeing upon an adequate supply of coal, at a cost that will permit the sale of its products at competitive prices. Maximum production from the maritime coal fields has been a matter of national necessity during the two great wars within our generation. Thus the maritime coal problem is of the highest importance, not only to that locality but to all parts of Canada.
Mining has been carried on continuously in the Cape Breton field for a longer period than in any other Canadian area, and part of the problem arises from the technical difficulties,, inherent both in the nature of the deposits, and in the very fact that mining operations have continued along lines laid down years ago. The methods adapted to mining of coal in earlier years may not be best adapted to the present situation. The royal commission report devotes considerable space to mining methods in these areas.
The production of coal in the maritime provinces, since early in the war, has presented an increasingly difficult and distressing problem. Production in this area has dropped by over two million tons per annum from normal, and the cost of production has skyrocketed to the point that the federal government has been obliged to provide upwards of twenty million dollars to the mine owners since January 1, 1942, in production subsidies, to prevent the industry from collapsing. The operators have placed the blame for decreased efficiency and higher cost on labour, and in turn, labour has been very critical of the management.
Special production subsidies no longer can be justified. The royal commission recommends the ending of production subsidies, but two of the commissioners suggest continued government aid to the maritime industry for a short reconversion period. The report is definite in its indication that the industry must expect to stand on its own feet, except for enlargements of its markets through freight subventions. Unless increased production' can be obtained, subvention assistance is likely to be of little benefit, as production of coal, and its consumption, are at present about in balance within maritime provinces.
In pre-war years, wages for coal miners in the maritime provinces have been lower than in other fields, and the necessity for this disparity was recognized and accepted. It is, however, an unsound policy to attempt to Derpetuate an industry through low wages.

Therefore every effort must be exerted to provide,. through a return to low cost and efficient production, for the payment of wages that will return a fair and reasonable standard of living to the workers. We are faced with the outstanding fact that if production in [DOT] the mines were brought up only as far as the pre-war level of efficiency, the present difficulty would fade and disappear. Such an improvement would provide for increases in wage scale, as well as for surplus earnings available to management for necessaiy mine improvements.
I would sum up the maritime situation by saying that unless the problems facing, the industry are quickly solved, the industry is heading for disaster. The problem of restoring the coal industry of the maritime provinces to a healthy condition is wrapped up with the continued prosperity of the area, and constitutes a plain challenge to private enterprise, as it is also a challenge to organized labour.
The coal report concludes with both majority and minority recommendations, but it is interesting to note that there is in fact a substantial measure of unanimity. There is agreement with the policy of assisting Canadian coal to find a wider market by means of subventions and the present tariff, as that policy has been developed and administered in the past, is sound and should be continued, although there are some small differences of opinion as to the future scope of the policy. The commissioners are unanimous in the opinion that nationalization of the industry, in whole or in part, does not offer any promise of improvement over present conditions. There is agreement that a statutory board should be established to carry on the functions of the dominion fuel board and to assume additional responsibilities in the national interest.
Returning to the supply problem in Ontario and Quebec, geography and economics make it inevitable that these provinces must depend largely on imported coal. Thus the supply is subject to interruptions beyond the control of Canada. We had an example last summer, when you will recall that a protracted coal strike in the United States was followed by a protracted seaman's strike in Canada. Strikes in the steel industry in the United States, result was that at September 1 our imports were three and one-half million tons lower for that period than would supply our minimum requirements. I had every reason to fear that Canada would face a situation this winter similar to last winter's situation in the United Kingdom. However, the coal controller and his staff combined with the Canadian shipping board, both of which had war emergency powers, in a determined effort to correct the situation. Lake carriers

Dominion Coal Board
were taken out of their normal trades and diverted to the carriage of coal. Emergency arrangements were made to transport Alberta coal to Ontario markets and to move American coal by rail into this area. The result was that the close of navigation found us with our minimum requirements provided for, plus one and one-half million tons of bituminous coal, and one million tons of anthracite coal, as an additional cushion against further interruptions to supply. This correction could not have been made without the agency of overriding emergency powers. If in future Ontario and Quebec are to have reasonable security of coal supply, it seems necessary that the new statutory board must be clothed with emergency powers adequate to enable that board to deal quickly with any dangerous situation that may arise. The bill based on this resolution will provide accordingly.
Hon. members will find in the resolution and in the bill to come before them, the details of the constitution, responsibilities and authority of the proposed new board. These have been drafted in general accordance with the recommendations of the royal commission, and it has been considered advisable to avoid any attempt to circumscribe the usefulness of this new body by too precise a definition. In the last analysis the responsibility for policy must rest directly upon parliament and government, since the expenditure of public funds will be directly concerned. The matters with which the board will deal are, however, so diverse in character that it will be necessary, for the efficient discharge of the responsibilities imposed, that a wide area of authority be provided for investigation and consideration. The implementation of the findings of the new body will remain the responsibility of government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The report of the royal commission on coal has been in our hands for some time. This resolution provides first:
That it is expedient to present a bill to establish a corporation-
In the first place, the minister has given us no reason why this should be a corporation. It is just one of the many crown corporations which we have been forming in times gone by, although in this particular case I can see no reason whatever for clothing this arm of government with corporate powers and then taking it, like other things, outside the civil service, outside audit by the auditor general, and so on. The minister did not mention that in his statement. There may be a reason, but if there is it is quite unknown to me. The resolution continues:
-to be known as the dominion coal board to administer subventions or subsidies relating to coal voted by parliament, to exercise and perform certain other powers, duties and functions.
The last remark the minister made was, I think, the only one he made with respect to these other powers, duties and functions, when he said that he intended to clothe this board with emergency powers. The recommendations of the royal commission are found on two pages, 582-3, of their report, and Mr. Justice Carroll and Mr. Justice McLaurin had this to say. The last paragraph is really the acting one:
It is not generally practical to fix subvention aid by statute because the assistance must vary from time to time with changes in the competitive situation. It is exceedingly important that any aid extended should be attended by scrutiny of the efficiency of operations.
Mr. Morrison, at page 600, in his summary puts it in this form:
A Canadian coal board should be established, to advise the government on assistance to the industry and protection of the public interest, and to administer such assistance as the government deems necessary.
There is this distinction. He thinks the government should determine the assistance necessary, and in my opinion perhaps the other two think it should be a function of the board. The second paragraph of the resolution reads as follows:
Provision is made further for the advisory functions of the board, for the employment of professional and technical advisers and assistants and their remuneration, and for all expenses of the act to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose.
I have now read it all. All I am urging now is that I am not in favour of this bill at this time, and I intend to explain why at this time I can see no necessity for it. If I had a much better idea than I now have or a much better idea than the minister has given me about it, I might then be in a position to support it. But what does it amount to? It is nothing more than a resolution saying that we should set up a new corporation to do what certain employees in the government, in the very language of the coal commission, have been doing satisfactorily over the years. At the moment I can see no reason whatever why these functions should not be performed by the men on the fuel board, one of whom I know very well and whom I regard as one of the greatest authorities on coal in the Dominion of Canada; he would certainly be better than any chairman the government can pick out of the air and put at the top of this board.
Dominion Coal Board

The point I am making ia that, at the moment and with the brief explanation we have had, I cannot see why we should go to the trouble or expense of creating a new corporation with all the attributes and functions- that is, aside from the civil service and so on-which attach to corporations of that kind.
I realize that what I am going to say will be quite unpopular with some people where I live, but I intend to say it anyway. What happens is this. We set up this commission, and I commend them for the immense amount of work they did. I also add that they could have found ninety-five per cent of this information in the files of the government right now. That could have been done, because I know it is there. All these vast summaries have been done again and again, as the minister pointed out, from the time we first started investigating this business many years ago. But that commission was appointed, and they are not blameworthy. They were appointed to find a national policy with respect to coal. I mean, in my own language that is the function for which they were set up. As is admitted by everybody, in discharging that function they have found no answer whatever. In this book there is no answer to the Canadian coal problem. It may be, as the minister said- and I think he is right because he has great knowledge of this business-that as far as central Canada is concerned, we must rely perhaps for a considerable time on imported coal. But he added that we got into an emergency a short time ago and had to switch railroad stock from other purposes in order to save this situation.
This whole thing comes down to a matter of dollars. The big problem is, is the coal problem in the Dominion of Canada a national problem, or is it not? I think we all admit that it is national. Then the only thing we have left to consider is whether it is worth while, I mean to provide the dollars necessary to give coverage to this country for our own coal. There is no doubt whatever that we have the coal. Unfortunately it lies largely on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, at least in that area right from the border away up through the coal branch to those mines in there. That difficulty may be insuperable. I must say I am discouraged; I have no ready cure to offer the minister at the moment. But it does seem strange that in a land like this, where we have the coal out there and the great need for it down here, we have developed no scheme by which those two elements may be brought together and thus create industry.

The minister covered our various fields, and I was very happy to hear him say what he did about Alberta. But in justice to those who operate fields in other parts of the country, let it not be forgotten that in Alberta they work under rather good conditions. You find seams anywhere up to sixteen feet in height. On the Highwood river, where I have been myself-I am not like the hon. member for Davenport; I have not travelled much, but that is only sixty-five miles from my home- I have seen seams of solid coal forty feet in thickness, and I may say that is quite a thick seam of coal. There you will find three and four seams underlying each other, perhaps three feet, six feet, eight feet and forty feet in thickness, all in the one formation. So that there is no problem there as to competition with any other place, one might say, with respect to price. Then on the coal branch, that is the branch running south, at Edson I believe they are stripping their coal, which, of course, means that the cost has been brought down to a very low figure. I understand that they operate both a deep mine and a strip mine at the same time. Then you come into Saskatchewan, about which the minister spoke; and if I am not mistaken the successful operation in that area is largely a stripping operation. Then he spoke of British Columbia. I am very far from being an expert in this business, and I am not referring to the district around Fernie, Shelley and so on, but is it not a fact that the Vancouver island field is practically worked out at the present time? I have not been there for several years, but at that time I was in very good company-[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not blame the minister for laughing. I was in the company of mining men; one of those places was available and we patronized it. The point I am trying to make is that at that time it seemed that those fields had practically reached exhaustion. Certainly it was a matter of not many years before they would reach the end of the blocked-out supplies.
Then the minister went to the maritimes. I am not going to say anything about that, save this. It seems to me that there of all places our national coal problem is simple. It is obvious that if things proceed as they have been proceeding in the last four or five years, as the minister says one can see the thing fading and disappearing as an industry at that place. As the minister stated, this coal commission has said that subsidies to the industry must cease, and I believe such steps have been taken. They do favour subven-

Dominion Coal Board
tions, by which they mean assistance with respect to freight rates in carrying the coal from one place to another. But I just wonder if at this time we can say that subsidies there should cease. As I said to the Minister of Labour in a previous debate in this house, and as the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply just repeated, down there the men blame management, the reason they give being inadequate machinery and inadequate power. On the other hand, management blames the men, saying they simply are not doing the work. The taxpayers have spent $20 million there by way of subsidies. As the minister has said, if we return to conditions as they were prior to the last war, then the industry can carry itself and pay a decent wage.
So, sir, with great respect I say I do not think we can ever thoroughly understand and, having done that, handle that problem unless we find out which of those statements is true. If it be that the ton and a half per man per shift, approximately, is the best that can be accomplished, then I think it is obvious that the worst fears of the minister will come true unless something more than subventions is done; and of course the only other thing is subsidies. But I do not see how this government or this parliament can say we should stop doing this or that until that specific and simple question is answered. And it can be answered; that can be done in a month by sending some experienced people down into those pits. The minister shakes his head. I do not often disagree with him; he is an authority on coal and many other matters, but perhaps I might get a little shot in somewhere edgeways. I say that can be solved by four men going under ground in those pits; I make that statement, and in it I have the support of a number of people engaged in the business with whom I have discussed it. Until we have that question answered, what are we doing? We are groping in the dark with respect to one of the greatest national problems facing us, and with respect to what may be one of our greatest assets if it can be properly and profitably handled.
Before we are through with this discussion I want the minister to tell me one thing. Having regard to the limitations on this board which I see in this resolution; having regard to the fact he has told us that the commission itself found that subventions had been satisfactorily handled in the past, what gain is there to anybody by transferring that function from officials of the department to a new and expensive corporation? That is a simple question which I think is worthy of an answer, and which I believe can be answered simply. I had something to do with
subventions in connection with the late Charles Stewart and the late Wesley Gordon. At different times I have come here with different sides of the coal industry trying to wangle subventions out of these people for certain areas, and I am very happy to say that at times I met with certain success. But I do not see how bringing a new face into the picture will make it any more efficient than it is at present, particularly when we have the finding in the report, as the minister said, that the subventions question has been well handled. The two commissioners have said that conditions change quickly; and at page 583 of the report they object to the statutory form. But let us remember that, as the minister has said, the money can be provided only by statute. If we should have a change in the business during the course of a year, when parliament is not sitting, I do not see why an official of the government, keeping in touch with and studying the matter, cannot make up his mind just as quickly as another official of the government who is called a corporation. I am utterly unable at the moment to see any necessity for setting up a board at this time.
I do not want any one to think I am speaking against the general recommendation that subventions to that industry be continued. I remember coming to Ottawa some years ago to appear before the railroad board. The results were bad, but now that we are to pay them better, perhaps my luck will change next time. I endeavoured to find out what it costs to haul a ton of coal from Drumheller, Lethbridge and the Crowsnest pass, first to North Bay and then to Toronto. The board made a finding and I admit that the figure was prohibitive. After that finding, the subvention situation was carried on.
May I say with respect that I do not think we yet know what the cost is. It is probably my fault that we do not. I was not good enough and I certainly did not have the same kind of help as the railroads had. I felt rather like a fool and I probably acted like one. I do not think anyone knows what it costs the railroads to haul a ton of coall from Cape Breton to Montreal or from Drumheller or the Crow to North Bay or Toronto. I believe there is an opening for our domestic coal in the area north of North Bay, but I cannot prove it. If we could really get down to it and find out what the cost of doing this thing was, then perhaps we might find a basis for a coal policy.
Coming back to where I started, I should like to have the minister explain, first, why the creation of a corporation and, second,

Dominion Coal Board
what more will this new group or body do or what more can they do than has been done already by some efficient people who at one time formed the dominion fuel board?


Mr. BROOKS:: 'Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about coal in this house during the past- years, and I think we agree with the minister's statement this afternoon that the coal industry in the maritime provinces is headed for disaster unless some satisfactory means can be found of putting it upon its feet. We all know what the situation has been during the last few months because of coal strikes and other things that have occurred. The hon. member for Calgary West has suggested that there are two alternatives; either the coal industry in the maritime provinces must be maintained, or it can be allowed to go down. He did not suggest that it be allowed to go down. We in the maritime provinces realize what a tragedy that would be. As the minister knows, there are about 100,000 of our people who are more or less dependent upon the coal industry in the maritime provinces and upon industries which, in turn, are dependent upon the coal industry.
As far as the setting up of this board is concerned, I am not familiar enough with the coal industry to say whether it should be set up. However I do know that as far as the dominion fuel board was concerned, there were certain parts of Canada, in my own province in particular, where it was felt that the board1 did not meet the situation. Whether the board proposed to be set up by the minister will meet the situation is something which I am not prepared to say. I know this action was recommended by the Carroll commission and I believe it has also been recommended by the operators and the workers in the coal industry.
There is no question that this industry has been kept alive by subventions and subsidies, but we in the maritime provinces feel that that is not any great favour. The minister mentioned that industry in the central provinces, apart from the coal industry, has been kept on its feet to a great extent and built up by the fiscal policies of this country and by our tariff. All industry has been helped greatly, and there is no reason in the world why the coal industry, which means so much to the eastern and western parts of this country, should not be assisted in the same way. The Carroll commission mentions that in its report
W het-her subventions and subsidies can best be handled by a board as suggested by the minister, or in some other way as suggested by the hon. member for Calgary West,

is something that I am not prepared to say. I understand that subventions were first given to the Nova Scotia Coal Company about 1930, in the depression years. Those subventions were given as a protection against United States coal. We must realize that Canada cannot produce, or at least she cannot deliver all the coal required in the country. At best we have never provided more than one-third, about 15,000,000 tons out of the 40,000,000 to 45,000,000 tons which are needed by industry and consumers. Therefore it is necessary to bring in coal from the United States. The subventions were given to assist in the movement of coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal and central Canada.
I should like to speak for a moment with reference to my own province. Subventions were given to the mines in Nova Scotia to assist in the introduction of coal into New Brunswick. The mines in New Brunswick depend entirely upon the local market. They sell their coal to the pulpwood industry, to the provincial hydro plants and to the railroads. Sufficient coal is mined in New Brunswick to provide a large portion of these needs. Because of the subventions paid to Nova Scotia mines to assist in the movement of coal into New Brunswick, the industry in New Brunswick has had a most difficult time. Coal from Nova Scotia, with the assistance of subventions, can be sold in New Brunswick more cheaply than New Brunswick coal. The subsidy paid on Nova Scotia coal to the Dominion Coal Company is about $1.67. There is a feeling among the smaller operators in the maritime provinces that the Dominion Coal Company, being a large and strong corporation, can get what they want while the smaller operators have always had a difficult time in getting anywhere near the same treatment as Dosco.
I wish to emphasize that I am not objecting in any way to the subsidies and subventions which have been paid in Nova Scotia, but in so far as the subventions apply to coal that is shipped to New Brunswick, we feel that they constitute an unfair discrimination. We submit that our people have not had the opportunities they should have had.
I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention to appoint this board on a geographical basis, whether men appointed to the board will be men who understand the coal situation in western Canada, whether they will be men who understand the producers' and consumers' points of view. In New Brunswick the coal situation is entirely different from what it is in any other part of this dominion, and I should like to know whether New Brunswick will have a repre-

Dominion Coal Board
sentative on the board. How many members will constitute the board, and what technical advisers and assistants is it proposed to appoint?
We in the maritimes have been producing fifty-two per cent of the coal that is produced for sale in Canada, and in the sale of that coal the sellers have received about one-third of a cent per ton. But in western Canada, which produce forty-eight per cent of the total for the dominion, the sellers received 194 cents per ton. That just shows what a great difference there is between the different parts of this dominion. This board will have to be a very wise board indeed. It must understand the situation, in all parts of this country. I hope that something will be done to keep the coal industry on its feet and that every section of Canada which depends on the coal industry will receive consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: I have been in favour of protection, bonuses, subventions and subsidies for this great industry of coal ever since I entered this house, so that, we might develop in this country a national fuel policy and be dependent no longer on a United States supply, but on a supply of British coal, from Wales, from the maritime provinces in this country and from Alberta. At the time I was ridiculed and laughed at, but I had a powerful newspaper behind me, the Toronto Evening Telegram, which pioneered and was the author of this national fuel policy for Canada. In 1947, in some places we shall be using coal in Canada for ten months of the year on account of the unseasonable weather.
In 1915, when the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin was president of a great industry in Swansea, Wales, a ship came out and landed a cargo of Welsh coal in Ashbridge's bay, Toronto at the Baldwin granite plate plant. The Evening Telegram spent large sums of money in publicizing this importation of Welsh coal and generally an all-British fuel supply, and I introduced my resolution for a national fuel policy in the house in March, 1923. That same day Hon. Mr. Drury, then premier of Ontario, was in the building and denounced protection as an unmitigated evil that should be torn up by the roots. At that time we had very few supporters among hon. gentlemen opposite for a national fuel policy. I do not see any in the house who were here then. But Hance Logan and the present Mr. Justice Carroll of the coal commission, who was then a member of the house from Cape Breton, supported my resolution. It went to a committee of the House of Commons under the chairmanship of Mr. W. F. Carroll, M.P. That committee made a report, but the report was not adopted until five years later, after 83166-272
the election of 1926. About 1929, the government spent large sums of money by way of bonuses, subventions and subsidies for the coal industry. I give them credit for it, and we can see the results today.
I believe that the minister has done a great deal of good work. I am not one of those who think all the evils and all the good are confined to one party; far from it. I should like to see the functions of this board extended to cover wood peat and other forms of heating, because we shall have a difficult winter. People are going to freeze to death in Canada because of the scarcity of coal and wood. Passing on the train two or three weeks ago, I looked at the coal pile in Ashbridge's bay, Toronto harbour, in my constituency. Normally there will be 600,000 to 800,000 tons of coal piled up at the docks there, but there was very little coal there two or three weeks ago, on account of the strikes and the use of coal in June in some places. The coal situation the world over will be acute this winter. Many in Europe will freeze to death.
I have not the report of the coal commission before me, but I knew the chairman, Mr. Justice Carroll, when he was a member of this house and I had great confidence in him. I believe he has done great work as head of the coal commission, and its report contains a great deal of valuable information, and reveals a lot of labour spent on the problem. I just looked over it the other day; I hope to read it later.
Then think of the great riches of this country in water powers. We have a potential 47,000,000 horse-power in this country, of which only 7,000,000 horse-power has been developed and a portion of that 7,000,000 horse-power is used only seasonally, not for the whole twelve months of the year.
I support the principle of this bill and would like it to include a labour safety clause. I do not want any party to claim credit for it, but I like to pay credit where it is due, and protection was always Conservative doctrine, and in this form of it to pay bonuses, subventions and subsidies to be properly applied to the national development of the country and its resources. My hon. friends to my left were then, after the last election, about fifty-one in numbers in this house led by a very fine man, now a senator and a former cabinet minister, but I did not get very much support from his party at that time when their friends in Toronto, led by Mr. Drury, said that protection was an unmitigated evil.
Now let us get on with the business. In less than six months we shall be having the hardest winter we have ever had.

Dominion Goal Board

As I said, I hope the functions of this board will be extended to cover fuel, wood, peat, also cheap light and power. There is no reason why-only one-seventh of our potential horse-power
should be developed. There should be a national hydro policy for the whole dominion. A long time ago I was surprised to learn that they had no hydro electric policy in British Columbia, but they have established one recently. The province of Quebec is also starting on public ownership of hydro. I hope that in the years to come a national hydro electric policy will be developed for this whole dominion.
In the old days we used to have wood brought down by the old Nipissing railway from south of North Bay. This wood was used for fuel. A lot of it could be used now.
I hope that every effort will be made to see that this board which is to be appointed is the board which will expand itself as years go by and that we may get a national fuel policy which is needed for health purposes and to develop this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is not my intention at this time to speak at any great length, but I should like to say that we must have a fuel policy before the difficulties of the country are solved. It was the hope of every hon. member, and certainly of those in the west who are particularly interested in coal production, that when the coal commission's report was brought down there would be some indication of a national fuel policy. I have gone carefully over the report and, so far as I can find out, there is nothing in it which would bring about a solution of that great problem. Whether the payment of subsidies will be the entire solution I am not sure. From my reading of the report I gather that the commissioners did not favour the idea of a production subsidy.
Like the hon. member for Calgary West, I am not in a position to say whether a production subsidy would be worth while. I do not think anybody is in a position to say that until he knows the actual facts. Certainly from my scrutiny of the report I did not think the commissioners were in a position to tell us, other than to say that conditions in the eastern part of Canada were not as good as they should be. I am not one of those, and never have been, who favour subsidizing inefficiency. It is poor business to start with, and it would be an exceedingly poor policy from the government's point of view.
The government has paid out large subsidies, particularly during the war, to get badly needed production. It subsidized production. During that time the government was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in sub-

sidies; yet the report revealed that there was not the proper provision in the mines to warrant large payments in view of the fact that the companies themselves did not improve the working and safety conditions of the mines as they should have done. The result was that the miners who were compelled to work in these mines were working under a great handicap and in great danger. Whether the problem can be solved by the payment of subventions remains to be seen. I believe that by setting up this corporation the government would lead one to believe that subventions would be the solution. Whether that will prove to be true I am not certain, but I am certain of this, that whatever method the government intends to use to try to solve our coal problem it will have to see that steady employment is given in the mines. The solution will have to be one under which the miners themselves will be assured of steady employment the year around with sufficient income to keep them in a decent standard of living. That is fundamental. Whether it can be done by subsidy or by subventions I am not sure. It is a certainty that one of the great problems which we find in the west particularly is that of the long transportation haul.
If my memory serves me correctly-and I have hauled a great deal of coal-the mines in Alberta can produce coal at somewhere around $3 a ton. If you go out to the western part of the province in the foothills, I am told by good authority that coal can be put on the cars at around $1.50 a ton because, as the hon. member for Calgary West has indicated, of the great seams of coal in the banks. But whether it is $1.50, $2 or $3 a ton, the point I wish to make is that by the time the coal reaches Ontario there is a vast difference in the price. It jumps from the prices I have indicated to around $15, $16 and $17 a ton. I would assume that the difference is made up in transportation costs and so forth. Whether that can be overcome or not is a problem which remains for the government to solve.
As I have pointed out on many occasions, I think we missed one of the greatest opportunities this country ever had when during war time the government did not see fit to adopt the suggestion that some of us from the west made, namely, to create some industries out where this coal is to be found. If some of our larger industries were encouraged by the government to go out and establish themselves where the fuel is, it would be one of the things which would go a long way toward solving the problem which faces us. It is an easy matter to transport labour into the different parts of the country, much easier

Dominion Coal Board
than shipping coal these long distances. It seems a strange thing that a country so vast as Canada should have all its major industries centralized in a comparatively small area. In time of war particularly, that is a dangerous state of affairs. From the point of view of safety of the country, it would be a great advantage to have our larger industries scattered throughout the dominion. That is something which should be looked into by the government, and in way it might ease the subvention problem. I am certain of one thing, namely, that when the plan is made the government should pay particular attention to putting the mining industry on a solid and firm business foundation. We remember the days of the depression when the miners worked only 100 days a year. It is true that, while they were working, they received fairly good pay. I remember that when I was teaching in the mining district of Evansburg west of Edmonton-I spent quite a few years out there-the miners worked approximately 100 days a year. One would have to get exceptionally high wages, which they did not get, to carry him over a full year. That is one of the things that the miners fear today. They fear that the season will be extremely short for them, and they are looking ahead to the time when a depression will come upon them.
No matter what the government does, it must see to it that the operation of the mines will be such that the miners will earn enough to carry them over a full year. This will be a big job. I had hoped that when the commission brought down its report there would be something concrete in it for the government and for hon, members to go on in formulating a national fuel policy. I am extremely sorry to see that, in my view, the commission did not so report. The responsibility is on the government. I myself am not convinced that the shifting of the responsibility for this problem from the government to the corporation will be a solution. Something more concrete will have to be done. Nevertheless, when the bill comes down we shall see what is provided in that regard. Until the bill comes down I shall refrain from making any further remarks.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Like other speakers who have taken part in this debate, I was greatly disappointed to find that the report did not indicate any national fuel policy or even point out any avenues by which we might reach a satisfactory policy in that regard. I think we all agree that in this country we need a policy which, first, will keep the mines working the year around and, second, will make 8316G-2721
the country as self-sufficient as possible in coal. In this connection I have thought that we in Canada should do a great deal more in the matter of research to find means to reach these goals. I do not know just what amount of research is being carried on to discover new uses for coal. There is in Ottawa a small plant which carries on a certain amount of research, but I would suggest that plants should be established at the mines and that this is a matter which should receive a considerable amount of attention over and above what it has had so far.
Many people think the eventual solution of our fuel problem, in view of the fact that we have coal at the extremities of the country and none in the central parts where coal is most needed, will take the form of liquefication of fuel. I should like the minister to indicate what is being done in the matter of research into the possibilities along that line, how far they have been explored, and whether there is any idea of establishing pilot plants to devise new uses for coal at the mines on a sufficiently reasonable scale to ascertain whether such operations would be practicable and economic. The establishment of this coal board as called for by the resolution would seem to me to result in considerably increased expenditures without, so far as we have been, able to find out, any real improvement in the way in which things are carried on at present.
Before we get through with the bill, we should have some information from the minister as to what the increased expenditure will be as a result of the setting up of this board. I should think it would be considerable, and unless there are reasons which can be advanced to show that a great improvement in the whole coa.l picture can be brought about by the board, and savings effected by it, the increased expenditure is not warranted.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I say a word on this? We, of course, are supporting this resolution that stands in the name of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, but I hope that the appointment of a board of this description will not be considered to have solved the problem. You cannot solve a problem by merely appointing a board. The board has to do more than just sit.
I agree with what the hon. member for Bow River has said, and I do not want to repeat what he has said, that the solution of the problem depends in great part on the manner in which we can place the industry on its feet, provide the people working in that industry with a decent standard of living, and utilize our resources for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Dominion Coal Board,

This is, of course, a phase of economic planning. It frequently comes before the house in various forms, but it indicates over and over again that we must get down to a consideration of plans. The hon. member for Calgary East indicated that clearly when he spoke of the necessity for going into various methods of utilizing coal in new ways. As we know, in European countries over the past number of years a great deal of low grade coal. has been utilized for all kinds of new purposes. With our hunt for oil, gasoline and so on, perhaps economic and cheap methods can be found by means of research, of producing gasoline and motor fuels from coal, besides the hundred and one things that we know are derived from that product. I have been surprised in years past to discover the number of products obtained from coal, such as dyes, sweetening material, flavourings, medicines and the thousand and one things one had no conception of before.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Germans fought the last two years of the war on gasoline produced from coal.


Mr. COLDWELL:: That is right, and a good deal of it was a very low grade of coal, brown coal from eastern Germany. That was the basis for a great deal of their gasoline. We in this country are blessed with an enormous quantity of coal. I have seen various estimates of the quantity of coal we have in Canada, sometimes the estimate being put at one-eleventh and sometimes one-fourteenth of all the known coal in the world, and that Canadian coal is in the area we now know as the coal-bearing region of Canada.
Everyone in this house is anxious to see this board established, but it must function so that we may have, not only a coal policy, but a national fuel policy for a country which needs fuel very badly indeed at most seasons of the year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Calgary West asked a pertinent question. Freely translated, his question was, why is a dominion coal board any better than the dominion fuel board? The answer is that the coal board will have much wider terms of reference. I was a member of the dominion fuel board from 1935 until it was succeeded by the emergency coal production board in 1942, and therefore I know something about its workings in that period. The board was called together perhaps four times a year. There was an efficient manager or secretary-


Howard Charles Green: Who did all the work.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -who did all the work. The board set the policy; he continued as long
[Mr. Coldwell.J
as he could under that policy, and then devised another policy and called the board together to approve the revision. At the end of the year we approved an appropriate estimate for the new fiscal year. The work of the board was wholly confined to carrying out the subvention policy which was formulated in 1922 and carried on with modifications until 1942.
It has been said that the subvention policy has been satisfactory, but that does not mean that it has been the cure-all for Canada's coal problem. It was a subvention policy which allowed coal to move from the mari-times into Quebec and sometimes into Ontario and, more recently, allowed a small tonnage of coal to move out of western Canada into northern Ontario. However, hon. members are aware that the subvention policy did not prevent the coal mines in the maritime provinces from being reduced to a working week of three days in certain years in the thirties. They know also that the subvention policy did not make for continuous employment in western Canada in certain periods. In other words, it was a good policy as far as it went, but it did not solve all the nation's coal problems.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No one
worked full time in the thirties. Isn't that the answer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some of us did. I did myself, and I think my hon. friend was fairly busy.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Dodging the sheriff.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are several coal problems. Subventions helped in the marketing problem. They have helped to dispose of coal and they help indirectly in the problem of finding continuous employment for miners. But there are limits to their effectiveness. For example, it would seem reasonable that by subventions the practice suggested by the hon. member for Calgary West would be effective, and that it is lack of money that prevents us from using Alberta coal in Toronto. That is not the situation. The physical capacity of our railroads to move western coal into Ontario is limited to about 1,000,000 tons, and with all the money that we could use in 1947 the quantity we were able to move into Ontario was not much more than half that.


Howard Charles Green: One million tons a year.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I mentioned North Bay, not Toronto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That does not matter. When it gets to North Bay it may as well continue to Toronto so far as the limitation of transportation is concerned. Western coal can be moved fairly freely in July and August, but

Dominion Coal Board
those are not months in which people buy coal, for domestic use at any rate. In September, October, November and usually in December, when people are buying coal, there is a tremendously heavy eastbound movement of wheat, which not only takes all the boxcars and rolling stock the railways can put into western Canada but also keeps railway operation at a very high level. That is the situation affecting western Canada.
However, the same situation does not apply in the maritime provinces. While the St. Lawrence river is open, it is possible to move into central Canada any quantities of coal which the maritimes have as a surplus. Therefore the subvention policy is a substantial help in solving two of the problems-that is, the problem of finding markets and the problem of maintaining continuous labour- but it does not help materially in solving the problem of Ontario and Quebec, which is one of obtaining the necessary supplies of coal from one source or another, and very largely from outside this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: Can the minister say what is the cost of transporting a ton of coal from Alberta to Ontario?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot. The government provides a subsidy of S2 a ton and the coal moves with that subsidy. Whether or not the railroads break even on the movement, I cannot say.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is it possible for the government to find out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It all depends on what is considered as cost. If cost is calculated as the cost of supplying a few extra boxcars on the end of a freight train which has to operate anyway, that is one cost. If it is calculated to include interest and depreciation on the roadbed, that is another cost. It is difficult to segregate railroad costs as between commodities.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that not being done to the south of us? The railroads there are working on a cost basis, under the * interstate commerce commission.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They may have broken the costs down, but I wrnuld not attempt to do so. Therefore I say I do not know.
Then my hon. friend asked why this commission should take the form of a corporation. I shall have to get a more satisfactory answer to that question than I can give offhand. All I can say is that for a commission to operate and do business it seems to be necessary that they be formed into a corporation. All the commissions I know of that operate around
Ottawa are formed into corporations; foi example, the national research council is a corporation; as is the national harbours board. I could mention others. I do not know why, other than that a corporation is a convenient form. It provides convenience of accounting and an accepted pattern for doing business that is lacking when three men simply form themselves into a committee. The old dominion fuel board was a committee. It met a few times a year. Our efficient secretary told us what we should do, and we felt no particular responsibility except giving the decision of the moment. A corporation is required to meet at regular intervals, and has definite responsibilities which confine its activities more directly to the problem in hand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The pension commission does that without incorporation.


Howard Charles Green: And the war veterans allowance board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That may be so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister is going to get a better answer than that, and he will need one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is similar to the maritime commission which was being set up yesterday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.
Then a question was asked about the geographical aspect, whether the committee would be appointed representing geographical sections. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. For instance, we shall need men with mining experience and men with marketing experience. The point is that the board should be representative of the problems of the various areas of Canada; the nature of the appointments must be both geographical and functional. Those considerations will be taken into account.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the minister tell us
how many will constitute the board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be a board of seven, of which only one is a full-time member. The others will meet at regular intervals, as provided in the act.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He is like
the secretary of the old fuel board. He will run it.


An hon. MEMBER:: With more latitude.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And will get paid twice as much, no doubt.
Mr, HOWE:	Well, I do not know about
that.
Prairie Farm Assistance

Then there was the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview which is also a pertinent one: Why not include other fuels in the responsibilities of the board? I will admit at once that there is one other fuel which might very well be included, namely, liquid fuel. The position of liquid fuel is very similar to that of coal, in that the larger part of Canada's requirements must be procured from outside. We are facing two difficult years, in so far as fuel oil is concerned. The shortage in fuel oil for next winter will be serious indeed and is likely to cause serious difficulties to a great many people. When the bill is before the house, I think I may offer an amendment to it. At the moment the bill confines itself to coal. I may offer for the consideration of the house an amendment which will include liquid fuel. T will not, however, press the amendment unless it meets with general acceptance.
There are certain aspects of gas as fuel which are interprovincial. On the other hand, the provinces have the gas problem well in hand and, I think, are better able to handle it than a central board would be.
A good deal of research has been done on coal. Roughly, I think the result of that research on this continent is to discard the hydrogenization method of producing gasoline from coal, as being too expensive to be practical in the near future. The major oil companies in the United States have conducted active research into that problem for a good many years. Recently they have discarded that line of research, and are now devoting their research toward making gasoline out of natural gas. That seems to be quite feasible. I think research on that problem would be of great interest to Canada in view of the' large surplus of natural gas which is at the present time being produced in western Canada. However, it will be the duty of the coal commission to initiate research into coal and into fuels and to pursue any avenue which may open up in that direction.
I think I have said sufficient for the resolution stage, Mr. Chairman, and would ask that the resolution be adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the board be responsible to the minister and, through him, to parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To what minister?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the moment the responsibility for coal is in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. In time, I presume it will go to the Department of Mines and Resources.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 340, to establish the dominion coal board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 261, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Definition of "crop failure."
James Garfield Gardiner: This bill has been before the committee on agriculture, and every section has been read carefully. The committee suggests three amendments. The first is to section 1, subsection 3, paragraph (e): that in the second last line the word "farm" be inserted between the words "cooperative" and "association".


Clarence Decatur Howe: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Sum awarded as assistance.
James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment in line 26 of the bill: that the last word in the line, "continuously", be deleted.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does that come from the committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I so move.


John Bracken: Were those decisions
pretty well unanimous?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, they were unanimous.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4

Regulations.
James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment to this section; that the word "farm" be inserted between the words "cooperative" and "association" in paragraph (b). It is the same amendment that was made to section 1.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26S, to amend the criminal code.
He said: This is a bill which comes from the senate, where it has already been fully considered. It contains three amendments of importance, one on page 1, the second on page 2, and the third on page 3. The first has 'to do with an amendment we put through the session before last, I think it was, based upon actions taken during the war. Many years ago, I believe in 1912, a bill was brought in limiting horse racing, and allowing so many days each year on certain tracks. When that bill was brought in it was declared that all charters then in existence were continued in existence. During war time provision was made to transfer racing from tracks which were being used for other purposes for the time being to certain other tracks. Permission was granted for the transfer of perhaps seven days of racing from one track to another, and that was continued under legislation brought in two sessions ago.
In administering the act we discovered that some persons apparently found it was possible to make some profit by utilizing old charters, many of which had not operated since some time before 1912, and claiming the right to have seven or fourteen days of horse racing on the basis of those charters by transferring that racing from what had been an operating track at one time to some other track. When these requests were coming before me from time to time I finally concluded that I should not permit these old charters to be utilized for this purpose. So it was decided to bring the matter more up to date and to eliminate the possibility of using these old charters to transfer racing from one track to another, by stating that old charters not operative between January 1, 1938 and May 19, 1947 could not be used for the purpose of transferring racing from one track to another.
The second matter has to do with the holding of eight races daily under a charter. The old act provided that there could be eight races, one of which had to be a steeplechase. Very few horses in Canada are trained for steeplechasing, and the provision now is that of the eight races one may be a steeplechase, though not necessarily so.
The other provision makes it possible for trotting races to be held in the evening or under floodlights, as well as in the afternoon.
These are the three main provisions. The bill has been through the senate, where it was carefully considered, and I submit it for second reading.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I might tell the house the business for the evening. We shall continue with the bill my colleague the Minister of Agriculture was just discussing; then order No. 25, the bill to establish the Canadian maritime commission; then supply in agriculture and national health and welfare, and we hope to finish them all tonight.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Horace King: The question before the
house is the motion by Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 268.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Betting, pool-selling and bookmaking.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one point upon which I wish to have the minister's assurance. He will recall that when the amendment of 1946 was before the house a question was raised concerning the rights of certain associations which were holding races. I should like to be clear that in the present bill there is nothing which impinges upon the rights which were carefully preserved to those associations in 1946. The minister will recall that representations were made at that time by some of these associations which felt that the form in which the amendment of 1946 was being introduced would have the effect of depriving them of some of their rights. In the form in which the bill was finally adopted those rights were carefully preserved.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is in this bill
nothing which impinges upon the rights which were jeopardized when the bill came here from the senate the last time. It will be recalled that that bill was changed somewhat in this house and it is in the same form now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the effect of
the changes which are being made. I refer particularly to those at the end of paragraph (b) of section 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendment provides that trotting and pacing races may be held in the evening under floodlights.
Maritime Commission


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was referring to the
words "betting'1 and "system" which appear at the top of page 3 of the bill. Apparently it is provided that betting must stop before the horses have passed a certain point.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are just clarifying amendments to agree with what is now being done.


Mr. McKAY:: Why are not other types
of racing such as dog and automobile racing included in this bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only explanation
I can give is that the government decided that at this time we should not provide for further pari-mutuel betting in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of Bill No. 336, to establish the Canadian maritime commission.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am amazed that the government should try to have second reading of this bill this evening. As Your Honour knows, the resolution went through late last night; when it went through I asked the Minister of Reconstruction whether we would have some time to consider the terms of the bill and I think I mentioned at least two or three days. His answer was, "Oh, yes; that is quite all right." There was no suggestion of the bill coming on for second reading today. I did not get my copy until I was sitting here this afternoon when it came through the mail. There was absolutely no chance to consider it this afternoon and we have just had the supper recess. There has been no opportunity for any of us to prepare to debate the bill.
Furthermore, I understand that it has not yet been printed in French. Just this evening I sent out for a copy in French and the report came back that the bill was not yet available in French. I submit that that alone makes it impossible to have second reading this evening. This is an extremely important measure for us who come from maritime ridings, and I submit that second reading should not be called this evening.


James Horace King: If hon. members want to discuss the bill on the second reading, if I were to put the motion for second reading it would then be open to any hon. member to move the adjournment of the debate.


Howard Charles Green: But my point is, Mr. Speaker, that the government should not lie asking that this bill be called for second reading this evening.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The leader of the house announced at six o'clock that the bill would be proceeded with this evening and I had understood that there was no objection. However, the government has no desire to press the matter if hon. gentlemen are not ready for second reading now. This is a simple bill, and easily understood.


Howard Charles Green: It is a blank cheque bill. .


Clarence Decatur Howe: For everything except money.


Mr. FRASER:: There is money involved.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection to calling another order, Mr. Speaker. We will take supply, Department of Agriculture.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: On a point of
privilege, we were told that we would get the old age pensions bill this evening.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will be on the agenda for tomorrow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But when shall we get the bill so that we may know what we are discussing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not in charge of that bill and I cannot speak as to that. But the convenience of hon. gentlemen will be considered.
Motion standis.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
25. Dairy products, $514,340.
James Garfield Gardiner: Probably it would assist the members of the committee and perhaps shorten the discussion if I were to call attention to the items under "Demobilization and Reconversion-Agriculture", on page 68 of the estimates. They are items, 485, Agricultural Prices Support Act; 486, agricultural supplies board; 487, programmes to encourage the production of essential supplies; 488, feeds administrator; 489, fertilizers and pesticides administrator; 490, seeds administrator; 491, dairy products board; 492, meat board; 493, special products board. I call attention to these items, because discussion on the contracts with Britain should come under these items which we shall proceed with when we

Supply-Agriculture
have finished with the items on marketing and specials; or we could take the items on page 68 first, whichever is desired. I mentioned that to facilitate the discussion of these items, which are, after all, the general items we have always had in connection with marketing even before the war.


Mr. CHARLTON:: Since we -were debating cheese last night I think we should continue with that discussion. In his remarks last night the minister gave us the number of cheese factories in Ontario as follows: in 1943, 561; in 1944 , 556; in 1915, 547. The hon. member for Lanark gave us the figures for 1946 for eastern Ontario by saying that twenty-three cheese factories had been closed down in the eastern part of the province. That makes at least thirty-seven fewer cheese factories in Ontario than there were in 1943. But in spite of that, the minister insists that the lateness of the season was the main reason for the reduced production of cheese. Let me quote his words at page 4225 of Hansard:
I should repeat what I said earlier in the discussion. Cheese production is a month late this .year because of the nature of the season. That in itself largely accounts for the fact that cheese is down as compared with butter. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I have heard him use the argument time after time since he has been here in the house that price has something to do with this. Everyone admits that cheese is higher in price than butter at the present time, and much higher. If price is the only thing that counts, or the return that the farmer can get for it, then cheese production should certainly he higher. But everyone who knows anything about farming in Ontario knows the production season is at least a month late. A month or a month and a half from now we could make a much more valuable comparison than we can at the present time.
The lateness of the season should have nothing to do with the freshening date of cows and that is what controls the production of cheese in Ontario. Cows are largely milked during the summer months and dried during the winter months. Pasturage has been very good this, spring. So that the lateness of the season has very little to do with the reduced production of cheese. The minister says that I shook my head last night. I still insist that price is the main factor in the reduced production of cheese and I make no apology for bringing that fact before the committee frequently. I think the minister is from ten to eleven months out in his theory, because for most of Ontario the production season will be almost one year late, for very few farmers have crops in now.
Cheese has been one of our main exports for many years, and it is an important factor in the dairying industry in this country. It has been the best outlet for our surplus milk
products to date. I think the minister should be fair with us and admit that price is the main factor and he should not try to blame the reduced production on the lateness of the season. He should do something with respect to our lucrative export market for cheese.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When the ceiling
was taken off butter, cooperatives and other organizations were told the date-line on which their prices would be set. In other words, they could not take advantage of any price increase.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was at May I, yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I am getting at is this, many of the cooperatives or other organizations, whether private industries or cooperatives-I am interested in cooperatives -had a lot of butter on hand. I do not know why we should not be permitted to take advantage of the increase when, according to this morning's press, a man named . Bickell made $4 million or $5 million in one year on gold. He defies the government and says that he will take the increase in price. Will farmers be put in the same position if they defy the government? In other words, will they get away with it, or will they be sued? I am interested in Mr. Bickell of Toronto if he gets away with making $4 million or $5 million and hoards his gold, and I should like to know why the farmer is not allowed to take advantage of the profit that will be derived in an increase in the price of butter.
With regard to butter the government set a date-line and above that date-line you could not get the advantage of the profit that may be derived from the butter. As I say, according to this morning's press, this man Bickell in Toronto says he will hoard the gold and take the increase. I want to know what the Department of Agriculture is going to do to see that the farmer gets the benefit of the increase.


James Garfield Gardiner: The announcement that was made in June was made for the purpose of protecting the farmer. The butter which was dealt with in that announcement was not in the hands of the farmer; it was in the hands of the person or organization that stored it. That organization might be a farmers' cooperative, or it might be that the creamery which was holding the butter was operated by farmers. But if it were, it would be possible for it to benefit to the same extent as others benefited. The fact is that the undertaking given was that if a group of persons who were storing butter had, at that time, some six or seven million pounds they would not be allowed to take advantage of the increase which was made at that time in the
Supply-Agriculture

price of butter, that is, the ten cents that it was increased by the action which was taken by the government. That advance in price would not be given to the persons who were holding the butter. The government declared it would provide means whereby those storing the butter would not be permitted to gain.


George Alexander Cruickshank: This is important to my province. In my section we have a large cooperative of which I am a member. We have a large amount of butter in storage. Some of my own colleagues in the house told me that I wanted to profiteer as a cooperative on the butter in storage because of the increase in price. This butter was produced by the farmers themselves. It is our own butter, and we have it in storage in our own cooperative. If we are to be told that -there is a date-line and for -the sake of argument butter was selling at forty cents a pound, and then went to fifty cents a pound, but we cannot take advantage of that, but we must go back to the forty cents a pound on our own butter, and if at the same time this man Bickell in Toronto, who made S5 million or $6 million profit in one year on gold, says -that he is going to defy the government, according to this morning's press, I for one wish to protest. He said that he was going to hold the gold, and his only excuse is that the government knew he had the gold. The government knew we had the butter. Do not make any mistake abo-u-t that. The government knew how much butter we had to the pound. The statement which the minister has given is not good enough so far as I am concerned. I knew what the minister would say long before he said it, but I want to know whether the farmers of the Fraser Valley, in whom I am particularly interested-and the same applies to farmers all over Canada-are to be held to a date-line and told that they cannot take advantage of a rise in price. I know that the Minister -of Agriculture has nothing to do with gold; it comes under the finance minister; but, so far as I am concerned, the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of and is responsible to the farmers of Canada for everything pertaining to agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Robert Earle Drope: The Minister of Agriculture has just made a statement about the 8^ cents paid on butter. He said it was already paid and it was a matter of the government protecting the people and recovering a portion of it from the persons who were holding the butter.
I should like to ask the minister a question about cheese. This afternoon when I -asked the question the minister said that we would get an answer tonight. What is the policy of the government in regard -to these overseas contracts for cheese? Does the government propose to requisition cheese t-o fill these contracts? That should be cleared up so that the cheese producers will know where they stand in this matter. An -answer to this question would probably cl-arify the whole dairy picture, since so much depends on cheese, a product which is exported. Will the minister make a statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: If -the hon. member would not mind, the item under which that is dealt with is 491, dairy products board. If the discussion on it could be left until we reach that item I shall discuss it fully then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
27.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian horticultural council, $785,000.
Mr. HERRIDGE:: What is the present position with regard to the export of tree fruits this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present position with regard to tree fruits is this, and particularly with regard to apples: the bill that we put through earlier in the session made it possible for the government so to arrange that an agreement could be entered into with Britain to take a certain percentage of our apples this year. The board that is concerned with that matter, which we undertook at that time to work through, had discussions with- the government shortly after the measure was put through the house and suggested that it would like to have a contract entered into as between Britain and the special products board, which had negotiated similar contracts before with regard to other products. The matter was taken up with the representatives of the British food ministry, and it was suggested to us that the time was not opportune to discuss the matter. That was in the early part of May; it was not known

Supply-Agriculture
then what the condition, of the British apple crop would be, nor was it known what the condition of the Canadian apple crop was likely to be, and they preferred to have the discussions opened at a later day. I expect that these discussions will take place in July. We have not carried the discussion further because we did not think the time was opportune to press it any further. There is a perfect understanding as between the apple board and the government with regard to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
28.	Live stock and live stock products, $795,199.
John Alpheus Charlton: Does the. minister wish to discuss pork and bacon products on this item or on item 492?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; on the meat board item.


John Alpheus Charlton: Not under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a question. In 1945 I brought up the question of the Kootenay poultry producers who wish to have an inspector appointed in the interior of British Columbia. The minister said that the staff was not available and that he was looking into the matter. I brought it up again in 1946 and received a similar reply. During this year the poultry producers of Kootenay West intend forming a cooperative egg grading station to be established at Nelson, which would perform a useful function for all poultry producers. There has been a steadily growing poultry industry there. Some of the minister's officials have complete knowledge of the situation. Again, on behalf of the poultrymen, I urge upon the minister the necessity for an egg inspector to be situated in the interior of British Columbia. I would like him to say what is being done in that respect now.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that it is now under consideration. I am not able to state anything more definite than that with regard to it. It is being given consideration at present by the officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
29.	Marketing of agricultural products, including temporary appointments that may be required to be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, the amount available for such appointments not to exceed, $15,000, $25,000.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I was
wondering why this should be $25,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: As regards appointments made outside the civil service, the amount with which to pay them cannot exceed $15,000 out of the $25,000. The remainder would have to be utilized through expenditures carried on under appointees of the civil service commission. We did not use it to any great extent during the war, but the reason for it is that we desired, in connection with marketing, in such matters as were referred to last night and again shortly today, to send to Britain men who were officials of farm organizations in order that they might obtain first-hand information as to what type of product was required there, and also acquaint the British with the nature of production here and gain knowledge as to any improvements that could be made so as to meet their requirements. We did send two or three such parties to Britain prior to the war, and it is anticipated that we may send some now that the war is over. They are not civil service appointees; the appoints ments are made by the government from among the farm organizations.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was just
wondering what it was.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
SO. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,000,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I rise to support this
item as strongly as I possibly can, as well as the one following it, for they go together. I am disappointed that it does not call for twice as much, $6 million instead of $3 million. I am afraid that the minister is a bit timid, although I wish to thank him for going as far as he has gone. Coming as he does from the west and having his heart in the west, as I believe he has, he could easily, I am sure, have envisaged an expansion that would have taken at least $6 million instead of $3 million. For that reason I am disappointed that the amount is not much larger. Of course, I notice that under item 570 there is an amount of $5 million, but it does not say where that $5 million is to be spent. If it were to be spent under the Minister of Agriculture I would be confident that a good portion of it would go to the west. Since it is not in his department, I fear the west will not get its proportion out of it.
I am not going to speak at great length tonight, because I have spoken on this subject before, but this year will commemorate
Supply-Agriculture

a wonderful event. On July 24 next, in the city of Salt Lake, Utah, will be commemorated the hundredth anniversary of the inauguration of irrigation on the continent of North America. Two days before the 24 th of July, 1847, namely on July 22, the Mormon brigades were approaching the future site of that city. The leader of the Mormon brigade, Brigham Young, sent forward two or three men, led by Orson Pratt, and told them that when they arrived in the valley they were to dam a river flowing out of the mountains into that valley. The leader of the Mormon brigade himself and a major portion of the party arrived on the 24th, and this year that arrival will be celebrated by a great demonstration at a large monument which has been erected in Salt Lake City and which I hope myself to see late in October when I am on my way to the national reclamation association's meeting at Phoenix, Arizona.
That event inaugurated irrigation on the continent of America, and within two or three days after July 24, 1847, five acres had been reclaimed and put under irrigation. With them it was an absolute necessity. The season was late, but of course the climate was favourable. The soil was exactly the same as we have in Alberta and Saskatchewan, wonderful soil that will grow anything, but it was without water. They began at once to work; they worked very hard, and in the ensuing eighteen years, that is to say up to 1865, they had constructed over 1,000 miles of irrigation canals and had reclaimed roughly 150,000 acres of land.
The results have been phenomenal. Anyone who knows Utah knows it is largely a mountainous state, with tremendous mountains and a few valleys, one of which is the great Salt Lake valley; yet, although it has only an area of 84,000 square miles-that is not a large area-the population today is about 550,000. That is a remarkable demonstration of what can result from an irrigation programme, and I am convinced that the same results would accrue in both Alberta and Saskatchewan if this house would support the minister-I believe it would-in an endeavour to inaugurate a programme comparable with what has been accomplished over there.
Last fall I had the high honour-it was a high honour to me, a very humble person- to be invited by the national reclamation bureau of the department at Washington to attend a function at Omaha, at which I learned a great deal about the tremendous results, beneficial results they have been too, that have accrued throughout the seventeen dry western states by water conservation and irrigation. There are seventeen states that are afflicted with low moisture, like our own

western provinces. When the function was over I was invited to go with a body of engineers and statisticians, which I was glad to do, to survey the great improvements in the valley of the Platte river. The Platte river is very much like the Saskatchewan river. It has two great branches, the North Platte and the South Platte. They both rise in the mountains and join away down in Nebraska, flowing into the Missouri river, much like the Saskatchewan. We have two great branches rising in our own Rocky mountains and flowing down, joining in the province of Saskatchewan and on into Lake Winnipeg.
I am in deadly earnest in my desire to do anything I can, as long as I am in public life, to assist in the reclamation of the western provinces and to further the whole economy of those provinces. And it can be done through irrigation. On that journey up and down the Platte river valley we ascended right up into the mountains. There were reservoirs 10,000 or more feet high up in the mountains on the North Platte particularly, and on the South Platte about 12,000 feet high in the mountains, to the everlasting springs from which the water rises and flows on down across the prairies. Many gigantic dams and reservoirs have been constructed there. I am not going to describe them as I should like to do, because I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates. On the North Platte, in the mountains, there are four gigantic dams. Up in the mountains themselves there are three gigantic dams, and there is one down in the foothills, namely, the Seminoe, the Pathfinder, the Alcova, the Kingsley and the Guernsey. The first three reservoirs conserve about
2,500,000	acre feet of water which is being used down on the dried-out prairies; the fourth, the Kingsley, contains over 2,000,000 acre feet of water; the next one, the Guernsey, contains about 50.000 acre feet. I am sure that altogether on the North Platte over 5,000,000 acre feet of water are contained in the reservoirs for irrigation purposes. On the South Platte something marvellous has been done.
I must confess that I am not in favour of diverting water from one watershed into another, but what is done in the United States is not for me to criticize. However, a branch of the Colorado river was diverted and the water taken through the high mountains, through a thirteen-mile tunnel. The amount of water taken through there is 550 cubic feet per second. It is pumped up to the level of the tunnel. Once through the mountains, it goes down 2.900 feet, passing through five power-houses on the way. In the course of its descent it produces 250,000 horse-power,

Supply-Agriculture
part of which, namely, that from the first power-house in the foothills, goes back over the mountains to supply the power that pumps the water up. It is the only place I know of where perpetual motion is achieved as a result of electricity.
East of the mountains themselves there are three large reservoirs, the Horsetooth, Carter lake and Flatiron. These three together conserve water which comes through the mountains to the extent of 350,000 acre feet. From them the water flows out through the irrigation canals. The transformation there has been stupendous. I should like it if this whole house could be taken to the Platte basin so that * they could see with their own eyes the marvellous transformation which has been made in those three states of Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming; they are states which are just as dry as the driest part of southern Alberta or the driest part of Saskatchewan. In many cases the water must be pumped up. It can be done in Saskatchewan. When I was making a survey between Elbow on the Saskatchewan and Moose Jaw and Regina, someone asked me if the water could be pumped up to irrigate the higher areas. It could be. It has been done over there in the United States, and the results have been stupendous.
In a word, what are the results? If one travels west across our own prairies, after leaving Winnipeg the next place of any consequence is Portage la Prairie, and then Brandon. Then you go a long distance until you come to Regina. From Regina the next place is Moose Jaw. Then you go another long distance to Swift Current. Then from Swift Current you go to Medicine Hat where you enter a really dried-out area. It is pitiable to see the territory around Medicine Hat,; it is magnificent land but without water. Then, after another long distance, you come to Lethbridge. That, I believe, is somewhere near 800 miles, using an arbitrary number, in which we have those few cities, every one of them struggling for life, except Lethbridge, [DOT]because the country roundabout, although it is productive, lacks water. It may have a good deal this year, but we cannot count on years like this. We have too much water in. Ontario this year, but we do not want to count on this very often.
In the same distance, Mr. Chairman, in the Platte basin there are forty fine towns and cities. All of them are rich; all of them are growing and all of them are extremely prosperous. All roundabout is an agricultural area the like of which I never saw before. If one drives into any of these cities in the Platte basin, what does one find? Take, for instance,
Scottsbluff. I suppose very few hon. members have ever heard of Scottsbluff, but I drove into it at night time from another city on the prairies called Alliance, and I thought I was going into New York city, for ten miles out of Scottsbluff every farmhouse, barn and farmer's yard were lit up. I asked the chauffeur, on one occasion when we were about eight miles out of Scottsbluff if we were in the city. "Oh, no," he said, "we have eight miles yet to go." That power is produced as the water tumbles down from one level to a lower, so that not only do they have irrigation which produces tremendous crops and provides ample fodder- for all their large herds-and their herds are extremely large- but it produces electric power. We can do the same thing in the west.
If one wants to see a demonstration of what is being done in the west in the way of power production, he just needs to start at Banff and go as far as the city of Calgary. I believe the company is called the Calgary Power Company. The water coming down the Bow basin passes through three, if not four, powerhouses and produces a great deal of electricity. That can continue on down the river. Much of these prairies can not only be irrigated and at least three to five million acres reclaimed but can be lit up. I know of no other way in which we can save these prairies. It is the most heart-breaking thing to read that in the last five years, in the three prairie provinces in Canada-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-the population has decreased by
104.000	souls. This means that our three prairie provinces, which have a combined area of 705,000 square miles, have gone down to approximately 2.350,000 persons.
What has happened in the Platte basin? I believe that Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming have a combined area of about 278,000 square miles or thereabouts. But those three states have a population of 2,700,000 as compared with the population in our three provinces in the west. If our three western provinces are to be reclaimed there must be a similar programme undertaken there. I am convinced of this, and I would give my strongest support to any such programme. I do not care what government it is that does it; any government that will bring in a programme to reclaim these prairie provinces I will support to the limit. What has been the result in the United States? Just as I have said. On those 278,000 square miles there are more than 300,000 more people living on those bald-headed United States prairies, and part of them covered with mountains, than on our
705.000	square miles in our own three western provinces.
Supply-Agriculture

If the same ratio of population were distributed over Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as now live in Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming, our three prairie provinces would have a population of 7,000,000. They should have that population, and will have it if they get fair play. What does that mean? It means another forty towns and cities as firm buyers of products made in the east. I like to couple up both east and west, because the more the prairies grow, the more their cities and towns boom and prosper, the better it is for us here. In many addresses I have delivered during the last year both in the east and in the west in the advocacy of programmes such as this, I have found everyone unanimously in favour of reclamation both in the maritime provinces and in the west.
The minister of course knows how far he can go, but I am sure he, as a westerner would have far more influence in the cabinet than anyone else-and so he should have-as far as the western reclamation programme goes. I wish this whole reclamation programme were under his department. It is now divided between the reconstruction department and agriculture; but the problems, the needs and the requirements of the prairies are matters in which his voice should be paramount in the cabinet. To me it is a terrible tragedy, as I said a moment ago, to see the population go down and down because, Mr. Chairman, that means fewer buyers for the threshing machines and agricultural equipment made in your own fine little towns of Seaforth, Clinton, Goderich, and other eastern centres. But if the population went up instead of down it would mean more buyers and more jobs down here. We in Ontario and Quebec go forward as these outlying parts of the country go forward. The man who cannot see that we all expand together cannot see very much.
The matter of water conservation and irrigation is not a matter of cost, it is an extremely sound investment, as I proved a moment ago by pointing out the increase in population in those three dried-out western states of the United States. Over there they are so thrilled with their towns and villages in the dried-out areas, always growing and expanding; towns and cities like Scottsbluff-Greeley, Alliance, and I could name a dozen or two more, each with many secondary industries. We should have exactly the same thing m our own west. Every town and city in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba should have several times the secondary industries they have today; and they would have those industries if they could get water for the prairies. And they can get it; the Saskatchewan river can supply it.

So I support this vote, as I will support the other vote under the reconstruction department when it is brought in. I hope the minister will press hard not only for the completion of the dam on the St. Mary river, as he will be doing in a moment or two, but for the construction of other dams. Why allow all that God-given water, that rich resource of water, to flow down to the sea and do no good as it moves across the prairies? So it is a delight on my part, knowing, as I believe I do, what can be achieved out there, to support this and any other vote that will mean reclamation and conservation of our own western prairies.
I expect that when I come back from Phoenix next fall I shall have a more extended story to tell, because when I am down there I shall thoroughly survey the marvellous transformation that has taken place in Arizona, Nevada and southern California, where today they are spending or rather investing millions of dollars. One has only to look at the gigantic works they are completing to increase the productivity of their soil to realize the benefits that will accrue from the programmes they are carrying on right now. I believe they are so satisfied with the tremendous achievements that have so far been completed that they are now initiating another great programme, on which they have many engineers working, for the reclamation of the whole Missouri valley. That is expected to cost about $2 billion, and they expect to increase the population of that valley by several millions. From the many miles I have travelled on the lower Missouri river, it seems to flow very largely through a flat country, where there would not seem to be many opportunities for the development of power; but their programme calls for the development of over 2,000,000 horse-power of electrical energy on the Missouri river and the reclamation of an additional 5,000,000 acres of land. Just think what that will mean, taking 100 acres per farm. That will mean 50,000 farms, which, at the Colorado average of nearly twenty people to each 100 including those in towns and cities, would mean a tremendous increase in population. The average here in Canada is from five to ten; so just look at what it would mean if we should ever reach the Colorado average of twenty per 100 acres. So I say this is not a cost but an investment. If I were sitting in the minister's place-as I never could, knowing nothing whatever about agriculture and being unable even to attempt to answer the questions he is asked, although I can answer a great many questions concerning matters I know something about-I would come in here with a gigantic programme of

Supply-A griculture
reclamation for the western provinces, first, for their own benefit and, second, for the benefit of all Canada. We would all prosper and profit out of anything that might be done in the west.
When I first rose I did say I was disappointed over the size of this vote, $3 million. But it is something, and I believe it is more than was voted at any other time, though last year we voted $10 million, which was not spent. I do not like votes of that kind; I like to see money voted and invested.
The minister has a golden opportunity in connection with reclamation. Take the Bow river, for instance. It is really pitiable that all the land northwest of Medicine Hat, the
300,000	acres west from there on the north side of the South Saskatchewan river, should be just lying there pleading for reclamation. It can be reclaimed; the Bow river has the water. I appeal to the minister not to be held up by anyone else in the cabinet. Stand up and double up your own fat fists and demand that this country be given a chance to live. It has not had a chance, as no one knows better than the minister. Give it a chance and our western prairies will blossom and bloom just as the land around Lethbridge is blossoming and blooming. No city in the west is comparable with Lethbridge in regard to expansion. I am very sorry I shall have to ask the minister, when he goes to Lethbridge for the inauguration of the western Canada reclamation association on July 11, to express my extreme regret at my inability to be there. I have an invitation as he has, but I shall not be able to go. However I am very happy to have had a part in initiating the western Canada reclamation association, covering the four western provinces. I know that when they get organized with all these delegates, of whom I have lists, they will have a potent influence with the combined strength of the four western provinces behind them. I am sure of what the minister will see at Lethbridge on July 11. Those men will say to him, "Mr. Minister, we will all go to Ottawa on special trains to back you up in the cabinet in your efforts at least to give us a chance out here to live when we have struggled for so many years". And how they struggled! I often think of the horrible struggles they have gone through. Give them that chance and I am sure you will be supported at Lethbridge by a body of men and women who will strengthen you to ask, not for S3.000.000 next session, but for the S10,000.000 that I suggested last session. And that should be kept up for twenty years-$10,000,000 a year for twenty years. When the estimates of the Minister of
Reconstruction are before us I am going to ask for $5,000,000 a year for twenty years for the reclamation in the maritime provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: Before the discussion goes any farther, I should like to refer to one matter that was brought up a few moments ago. Item 31 of the estimates for 1947 reads:
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage. (This does not include the costs of survey and engineering work on the Medicine Hat irrigation and Red Deer diversion projects in Alberta and the South Saskatchewan river project in Saskatchewan, which costs are to be made available from the item of $10,000,000, No. 606, Department of Reconstruction and Supply), $3,000,000.
It was intended to have that same declaration appear in these estimates. With regard to item 570, which corresponds with the item for $10,000,000 last year, that item is in the reconstruction vote and is for $5,000,000.
I have made representations to the Minister of Finance to have it put in the supplementary estimates and I hope it will be there when the supplementaries come down. In getting money for these projects, we are required to go to the Department of Reconstruction.
I am referring to the larger projects such as have been discussed in the last few moments. They would not be provided for in this $3,000,000 vote which is for ordinary rehabilitation work in the Palliser triangle. Most of the large works will also be in the Palliser triangle, but expenditures on them will come out of the $5,000,000 reconstruction vote. Last year I prevailed upon the Minister of Finance to have this explanation put in, so that any one reading it could see that the provision was there. It was omitted this year when they were printing the estimates, but I hope to have it in again.
I should like to make one or two remarks with regard to the recital which has just been made to the committee. When I was a boy I had the privilege of living in the area of which the hon. member has been speaking. We lived for five years in the valley of the Platte, close to where it joins the Missouri, but we were starved out and came back to Ontario. The conditions which existed there in the early part of the nineties were almost identical with the conditions that existed in Saskatchewan and Alberta in the early part of the thirties. The same conditions prevailed in Nebraska and Kansas in the thirties of this century as prevailed there in the nineties of the last century. There has been no difference in the weather conditions. We had exactly the same conditions in western Canada in the nineties as they had in Nebraska, and as we had in Saskatchewan during the thirties. There is nothing new
Supply-Agriculture

about it. Those conditions have prevailed on a number of occasions and they will come back again. Some provision must be made for the better distribution of the water that is in that country if people are going to live there.
I have driven the whole length of the Platte in recent years since these dams were built. I may say that some of the cities spoken of were there before irrigation wa3 put in, but they were in much the same position at that time as some of our cities in western Canada; they were going down in population rather than up, but now it is a different story with irrigation. In driving from one end of the Platte river to the other one can discover many of the things we should do and also some of the things that perhaps we should be careful not to do. I do not know whether the hon. member visited the higher lands where you can see the foundations of houses that were put up when the irrigation scheme was first put through.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That did not occur
around Alliance, which is a city of from 15,000 to 18,000 people. They pump the water up, but the land is thoroughly irrigated and they have marvellous crops.


James Garfield Gardiner: One can see the foundations of houses that were built and the remains of old cars beside those basements. I made a point of going to see that, because there are some things they have done in the United States that we should avoid. The story they tell there is that the contractors were obliged to make a declaration that water had passed through the ditch before they could get paid and they say that some water was taken through in bottles behind horses. Of course that was in the earlier days of the undertaking. I think that story is an exaggeration of what actually happened, but the ditches are there and there is no water in them; the foundations are there, but there are no buildings on them; the old cars are there that were worn out in the district and no one is using them. This is all up in the higher lands which are much higher than Nebraska or the eastern part of Montana. As I say, that area is the exception.
One can learn from that there are acres and acres of land, hundreds of square miles or even thousands of square miles of land in western Canada as well as in the western states on which you cannot put water, or if you do you waste it. The sub-soil of the area of which I was speaking is gravel and it is very high. One dropping there from an areo-plane and not knowing anything about the altitude would think he was on the prairies
[Mr. Gardiner.[
up north of the boundary, but he would find that he was probably up three or four times as high as the prairies. That also has some bearing on the question of what one can do.
There are many things that we can learn that we ought to do on the prairies in Canada, and there are many things that we can learn to avoid by going there and looking at the development. Anyone who has lived as a boy in the drought areas of the United States or who has lived through the drought periods in western Canada will agree with everything that has been said to the effect that there is only one way in which you can maintain population in that area, even the population that is there now, and that is to get all the available water distributed over the land which is suitable.
In so far as pleading with the government is concerned, I do not think I need to make any excuse or to hesitate in saying that ever since I have been in the government at Ottawa, and even before I came here, I have been advocating, just as the hon. member has been advocating, the placing of every possible gallon of water on the lands of western Canada. I think the leader of the opposition will agree with me when I say that, before the P.F.R.A. was brought in at Ottawa, he and I and the then premier of Alberta, Mr. Reid, met in Saskatoon and discussed this whole question. I think we can claim credit for pretty well having laid out the programme which was taken on under P.F.R.A. in 1935. We met in 1934 and in the early part of 1935, went over the whole programme and made our representations known to Ottawa at that time when the present leader of the opposition was premier of Manitoba and I myself was premier of Saskatchewan and Mr. Reid was premier of Alberta. The meeting was held in Saskatoon and the plans outlined.
But I found when I came to Ottawa that I had great difficulty in convincing this house that we should have even $5,000,000 to spend over a four-year period, and all the difficulty was not on this side of the house. As a matter of fact, after two years of battling, it was finally agreed that whatever amount of money we could get, spread over whatever length of time we could get it, could be spent on irrigation and water conservation in western Canada. But never have we been able to get more out of any government so far than $3,000,000 a year. The limit prior to this government was $1,000,000. That was the most any house ever agreed to vote. The amount agreed upon for 1935 was not spent under the previous government. But we have been spending from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 a year, until now the expenditures total well over $20,000,000. So far

Supply-Agriculture
as I personally am concerned, I think the expenditure should have been double that in the past, and it should be four or five times that in the future. But all these matters have to be discussed with representatives from right across Canada, as everyone knows; there are arguments that expenditures should not be made as rapidly as some of us think they should be, and after the whole question has been weighed, the fact is that we have provided $3,000,000 this year for these smaller undertakings. I hope that in due course we shall be able to obtain more, and that before very long we shall be able to spend at least the amount suggested by the hon. member on these other projects. If so, we would be spending some $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 yearly.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not desire to follow the trend of thought which has been followed for some time by the hon. member for Davenport, beyond saying that I agree that there are great needs in western Canada and in other parts of Canada for extensive irrigation projects, and I hope that the minister will, as he said, keep in view the great need and take steps in the future to launch some real enterprises along that line.
I wish to bring to the minister's attention a much more modest request under this item. For some years I have brought to his attention the desire of the people of the Peace River block to have P.F.R.A. applied to that section of the community. I have asked for this several times, last year on several occasions, and if I recall the minister's answer aright it was to the effect that he had intended extending the application of P.F.R.A. to practically all western Canada and practically all Canada, but that he had been prevented from going ahead because of the unsettled state of dominion-provincial matters. But in view of the fact that British Columbia and Alberta have come to satisfactory tax arrangements with the federal government, we feel that we should not be punished because some other provinces have not done that.
The minister is, I am sure, well aware that the farmers in the area to which I have referred have petitioned his department and passed resolutions time and time again, year after year, asking for the application of P.F.R.A. to their area. I have explained to the minister-I do not think it is necessary because he knows it just as well as I do- that there are peculiar conditions in that area. There are very few wells to be had either for watering stock or for water for the homes. People have to melt ice in the winter for water and often have to haul their water for miles from the river to do their washing and water their cattle. In the summer, the area is fairly
well supplied with rain, which helps to grow crops, but they have not water for their stock, and they want to use the privileges which P.F.R.A. makes available in the west where it now applies.
Is it the intention to extend the application of P.F.R.A. to the Peace River block under the present vote, and, if not, can the minister say when it will be possible to extend it to the Peace River block? I can assure him that there are thousands of farmers who will be anxiously waiting to hear his answer to that question. I do not want to hold up the estimates by making any emotional pleas, but I hope that the minister will give this matter his serious consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to the question that has just been asked, all I can say is what I did say in making the announcement a short time ago, namely, that P.F.R.A. would not be extended this year and that the government intended to undertake expenditures under votes which would be in the supplementary estimates. Those expenditures are to be made in the maritime provinces on the marsh lands that are dyked and on some special projects in British Columbia, one of which is under way and by the way is in the constituency of my hon. friend. The other amount is to be utilized in the areas of the western provinces which are not under P.F.R.A., which includes the Peace River district of British Columbia, and also in the eastern provinces. That expenditure is not intended to be on the same type of work that we are doing under P.F.R.A., the reason being that the responsibility for that type of work has always been with the provinces. As members from the western provinces and also from the eastern provinces know, works of that kind, such as finding water for household use, have been carried on provincially or municipally. In Saskatchewan, for example, which I know best, the provincial government through the department of public works or the highways department provided nearly all the dug-outs and dams that were built there prior to P.F.R.A. That is, they assisted in the building of them, or the farmers put them in themselves individually. In some places municipalities had equipment to assist the farmers in doing the work. So far as wells are concerned, the territorial government, before even the provinces were formed, dug wells, and they can be seen in-the older settled areas of western Canada today, most of them being on the road allowances. If one starts digging wells for people and you do not dig the well as close to one house as you do to another there is trouble. Sometimes the water is not located as close
Supply-Agriculture

to one house as it is to another, and so it was thought good politics, if not good business, to dig the wells on the road allowance and let everybody go to it for their water.
These practices were carried on under local organizations, not from Ottawa. Any activities that have been in eastern provinces or in western provinces, outside the P.F.R.A., have been carried on under provincial governments, or provincial governments working in cooperation with municipalities or counties. We said last year and again this year that until there is some further agreement than we have up to the moment with regard to responsibilities of that kind, the dividing of responsibilities, and the dividing of responsibility for collecting taxes, probably we should not take on any long-term policy in connection with this particular matter. Therefore we have undertaken to carry on P.F.R.A. where it is now being carried on in the Palliser triangle, and decided to bring these other water expenditures to bear upon the problems that exist there in so far as we think we ought to enter into agreements with the provinces to carry them on. I am not in a position to say the amounts that will be in the supplementary estimates which will be brought down in a few days. I know how much we have submitted to the treasury board. In a few days these estimates will be brought down and we shall know how much the amount is.


Mr. FULTON:: I do not wish to make a long speech on this matter, since I made reference to it on March 6 during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I wish to refer to the fact that up until May 22 we had hoped-I am speaking for the members from British Columbia-that the same principle as exists under the P.F.R.A. should be extended to our province. The reason I want to go back to that point again is that in his statement-to which the minister has just referred-which he made on May 22 and which he has elaborated tonight to some extent, he seemed to imply that it is not contemplated in any way to extend to British Columbia a thorough-going scheme of land reclamation and irrigation, but rather that it would be small local projects such as might be brought forward from time to time by the provincial government. I suggest to the minister-he no doubt has the advice of experts, and I am not going to put myself up against them-that the type of country which we have, particularly in the interior of British Columbia, does not lend itself to these small, local schemes. Speaking on the 6th of March, I said, and I am still of the opinion, and am [iMr. Gardiner.]
supported by all the briefs and expert opinions which I have been able to read, that what is needed is something in the nature of what they call in the United States an integrated project for the development of water power and irrigation as well as land reclamation. In the dry belt areas of the interior of British Columbia where you cannot divert a stream to irrigate large tracts of flat land but require to pump water probably 100 feet up to the bench above the river, you need water power for these projects. That is why it is so disappointing to us to read the statement which the minister made on May 22 and to find that he said, as reported at page 3318 of Hansard:
The dominion government would be prepared to discuss with the provinces concerned plans under which development could proceed over a period to be agreed upon, sufficiently long to bring about the desired results, but not to exceed five years.
That seems to me to indicate a very short-range and local project which will not fill our needs.
I wish to bring to the minister's attention one particular brief which has been submitted, and of which I know he has received a copy. It was submitted by the association of British Columbia irrigation districts. After going into the principles which they felt should apply in this' type of work, they set forth a summary of the acreage available for irrigation under some such thorough-going scheme. They show that there is a total of 97,155 acres available throughout the dry-belt portion of the interior of British Columbia. In my opinion that does not include actually all the land which is available, because no mention is made of the land between Kamloops and Ashcroft on the Thompson river. There was, for instance, once a project at a place called Walhachin, where their objective was a million boxes of fruit a year. They developed an irrigation scheme, but it was all by bringing water down in ditches some twelve or fifteen miles from lakes back in the hills. Then one year the ditches washed out; there was found to be no more money available from the private interests who were behind the scheme, and the thing folded up. You can drive through a tremendous area of derelict fruit trees where they were within a hair breadth of realizing their objective of a million boxes of fruit a year, when this happened, and today there is hardly a soul about. Nothing has since been done. It proves conclusively that you cannot put in an irrigation scheme if you expect the land which is brought under irrigation to bear all the costs without some government assistance. That is why the thing folded up. They did not

Supply-Agriculture
have enough money left in the treasury; they had not enough back from the sale of the land when the ditches washed out. There is all this tremendous acreage available down our river valleys and lying back from the rivers, but they require pumping from the land itself up to the bench lands before it can be got under way.
I have had a lot of correspondence with the minister and with other departments. I wish to refer to it and to ask the minister some questions in elaboration of has statement. The correspondence which I have had was with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Agriculture and, to a lesser extent, with the Department of Fisheries trying to get all the departments concerned with the rivers in British Columbia to work in with the British Columbia government with this idea of an integrated project. In one of his replies the minister indicated that he did not feel his department had any interest in that particular matter. I have, however, a letter from the Minister of Public Works on this subject in which he says his department is going ahead to appoint a commission in consultation with the provincial government to investigate conditions on the Fraser and Thompson rivers. He says:
A decision has already been reached to proceed in this matter and the provincial government and interested departments of the federal government are being approached in connection with the personnel of the proposed board or commission.
It does seem to me that if that is being done, here is a favourable opportunity for the two departments concerned, in conjunction with the provincial government, to work out some such scheme. All that we ask at the moment is that a survey be made. Look at the land available and decide how best we can bring it under irrigation and build up the water power necessary to pump the water and provide electric light, power and so on. I know there are engineers of the department of the P.F.R.A. out there now working with the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is another reason why I think the Department of Agriculture and the P.F.R.A. should be interested, because in that area the Department of Veterans Affairs is settling a number of veterans on the land. That is a dominion responsibility, not solely a provincial responsibility. The potentialities of that area are so tremendous that once we get the water on the land, although it might cost a lot of money-I know I have advocated economy-it would more than repay the cost over the years. The proceeds from the development of the land and the bringing in of secondary industries would more than
repay any initial capital expenditures. If it were regarded as a continuing project, a long-range project, we would find that we would recoup more than any outlay which was made in the first place. I hope that the minister will reconsider the statement which he made on May 22 and take under consideration again the institution of a full-scale integrated project in conjunction with the Department of Public Works and the provincial government.
In his statement the minister referred to certain projects related to farm lands in British Columbia, and I should like to know whether that is the Pemberton Meadows project, to which he referred a moment ago, in what is now the Cariboo constituency.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe the engineers
of the P.F.R.A. are doing service in the Thompson valley around Chase and Pritchard for the Department of Veterans Affairs.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have they any other work going on there at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are about six
projects in British Columbia which are being investigated for soldier settlement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the provincial government brought forward yet any projects following the statement the minister made on May 22 when he indicated that the dominion government would be prepared to discuss with the provinces any project which they might advance?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government of
British Columbia has written to us asking for a date at which they can come and discuss the matter with us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A final question. Are the
P.F.R.A. officials doing anything directly in conjunction with the Department of Public Works along the lines of the letter I read from the Minister of Public Works with regard to a commission to inquire into flood control and other conditions on the Fraser river and the Thompson river watershed?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been correspondence back and forth between the minister and myself iSith regard to the possibilities, not only in British Columbia, but in some of the other provinces as well.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to get certain information from the minster for purposes of clarification, because I am not as optimistic in this matter as the Prime Minister seemed to be about getting out on the 8th of July, if one may judge from some of
Supply-A griculture

the speeches tonight. It is not clear to me what the minister intends to do in British Columbia under this act. It seems to me that the hon. member for Kamloops is a little mixed up on the question of flood control. What we are interested in, so far as my part of the district is concerned, from the request that came from the associated boards of trade, is the question of river bank erosion and flood control in the Fraser valley. We do not want that mixed up with any irrigration scheme.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not interested at all in what you are interested in.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But you are trying to bring the Fraser valley into it and we are not interested in irrigation. We are interested in keeping the water off.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a great deal more to the Fraser valley than your constituency.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to make it clear that we are not interested in irrigation. Our concern is to keep the water off. Yesterday I had a complaint from a farmer which I took up with the Minister of Public Works. I believe New Brunswick has the same problem because the farms are being washed away through the erosion of river banks. This is a serious matter in the Fraser valley and I submit that this act should be extended to cover it. I am disappointed in any statement the minister has made so far. I understood from his original statement that, if the provincial government and the local authorities were prepared to come in with the federal government, money would be available. That is what I understood the five-year period meant. I understood the minister to say that is what is happening in the maritimes in connection with the dykes. I should like to know whether the department, in conjunction with the provincial government, is providing funds for taking care of river bank erosion.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the work which has been done, in fact all the work which has been done in the past, of the nature that has been discussed by both the last speakers, has been done under votes in the Department of Public Works, and I think much of that work will still be done under votes in that department. Probably what the minister had in mind in that regard was that some organization would be set up to survey the whole field and determine where the responsibility lies in connection with many of these works. There is a division of authority and responsibility as between the province and the dominion with regard to these matters, which makes it impossible for anyone to make any general 
statement about what this government will do, or what the provincial government will do; and until someone has determined that, it will be impossible for me to say what projects we shall work on, or how many. I only know that we shall work on as many as we have money to cover, and that will be determined in the usual way. Votes will be brought before the house and submitted for discussion, and then that money will be spent on whatever it is provided for.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister in mind any general principles governing the sort of project he would be prepared to work on with the provincial government?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have one which we have already done, or it is almost done, and that is the Pemberton Meadows lands. That one is now practically finished. The expenditure there was all made by the federal government. No assistance was given by the province at all in that. There may be special reasons why that was done by the federal government. Those reasons may not exist elsewhere. Each project would have to be considered on its merits and dealt with accordingly, but it is that type of thing. The work being done there is the work of keeping water off the land instead of putting it on, as was stated by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How do you
approach the government to get a grant similar to that in connection with Pemberton Meadows? Is it through this department? The minister says there is to be some money available for this, and I believe he spoke of six projects. Who will settle what these projects are, the federal government or the provincial government?


James Garfield Gardiner: These projects that have .been spoken of are not under our department at all but under veterans affairs, and we have been giving services of that kind, not only to other departments of this government, but to provincial governments and municipalities, in connection with water matters, by utilizing the engineering staff we have under P.F.R.A. When we do provide that engineering staff to investigate, it does not necessarily follow that we shall spend money on it. The Pemberton Meadows investigation started three or four years ago. We had a vote of S10.000 to provide for covering the expenses of sending engineers there. They went and investigated, and we finally undertook that work on our own, largely because it was almost altogether soldier settlement put 1here by the federal government following the first war. We under-

Supply-Agriculture
took to control the water on the lands, because it was running over the lands that these men had. This was a special condition that existed, which we undertook to deal with. Each one of these projects, or any projects that we undertake there, will have to be dealt with on their merits. The amount of money which will be voted will more or less determine how much work we can undertake.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In his statement the minister said it was considered that there were certain works outside the drought area which, if undertaken, would be of assistance to all Canada through making possible increased developments of farm lands which, if left to provincial or municipal responsibility, might greatly retard Canada's development. Can the minister amplify that statement? Are there any characteristics or particulars which the department has in mind and which such lands must fulfil before anything can be done?
. Mr. GARDINER: I had in mind, when making the suggestion to the government, which was accepted, that this expenditure would relate largely to the opening up of new lands for settlement purposes. That settlement may be a movement of people out of Montreal into northern Quebec; it may be moving people from one part of the province to another or from one province into another; or it may be bringing in new settlers altogether. They are projects of a type which may make for further development of the country.


Mr. McGARRY:: I have been following the minister's estimates through from the beginning and I think they are all justified. Particularly do I approve the estimates for the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration. If I were to offer any comments on those expenditures I would suggest that they be increased rather than reduced. For some years I have been advocating the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act so that its provisions would render some assistance in solving the problems which the eastern farmers are trying to deal with. I refer particularly to the flooding of the dyke lands and to the damage and destruction wrought on our meadows and intervale lands along our rivers and streams.
I notice that the hon. member for Fraser Valley referred to a specific case, and I imagine I may be pardoned if I do likewise and refer to one which has been brought to my attention for several years. It is the damage and destruction that is done to our meadow lands along the Margaree river. Every year acres of that most fertile land in
the maritime provinces have been rendered unproductive and acres of it have been washed away by flood waters, by ice floes and by uncontrolled waters which the farmers have been trying to control. They have now reached their limit. Knowing the situation as I do,
I will say for these farmers that they have done their very best to deal with the ravages of these destructive agencies, but a point has now been reached where this damage and destruction cannot be controlled by individual efforts. I do not know through what means or through what department some assistance can be rendered, but I honestly believe that, unless some government assistance is given, the most fertile lands of the Margaree valley will be washed out into the Atlantic ocean.
I believe that the assistance which could be rendered to combat those agencies would not mean a great contribution from the government. If the government were to assist the farmers, those who have vested holdings there, to build at strategic points breakwaters, small protecting walls, sheer dams and to do a little bit of dredging in order to keep the river in its natural channel, I believe that a great deal of the damage could be prevented. I honestly believe that if some such assistance is not rendered to our farmers in that particular section of the country, that fertile land in the Margaree valley, which is one of the most productive in the whole of the maritime provinces, will be washed away into the Atlantic ocean.
I would urge upon the Minister of Agriculture, although possibly this remedial measure does not come under the authority of his department, to collaborate with some other department of the government and point out to them the emergent need of conserving this fertile land. It is all right to be undertaking to rehabilitate lands which are today unproductive. But when we have productive land which has been destroyed by these damaging agencies, it is just as important to preserve land that is in productivity now a3 it is to spend money to rehabilitate land that is out of production. I would urge the minister to collaborate with the department which has to do with this matter, to impress upon them its emergency nature, and the necessity of something being done to assist our honest farmers who are trying their best and have exceeded their means in endeavouring to preserve these holdings.


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter which has just been referred to has been brought to our attention and has been under consideration by the different departments. Might I suggest that we could discuss these projects we are now discussing to much better advantage ' when the supplementaries come down, which
Supply-Agriculture

will be very shortly, when we shall know just what amounts of money are being voted. We can then discuss the expenditures of these moneys. If the committee would agree, now that we have had a sort of general discussion on the question, I think we could then enter much more intelligently into a discussion of these projects when the amounts voted for them are before us.


Mr. THATCHER:: Originally I had
intended to speak at some length on this item, but I think I shall spare hon. members inasmuch as they are trying to get along in a hurry. However I think this parliament should realize that in western Canada there are still large semi-desert areas. Unless we do something to reclaim those areas in the very near future, our national economy may be in danger. From history we know that these droughts come along, roughly, every seven or ten years. We realize, therefore, that we are probably due for another one of these droughts fairly soon. Since coming to parliament, I have found it difficult to understand why, every year, we talk about irrigation, but do very little about it. Canada's behaviour in this regard compares unfavourably with that of the United States. Back in 1935, drought conditions in the United States were even worse than they were in western Canada. Whole areas had turned into dust bowls. People were moving out and going on relief. But since 1935, the United States have irrigated about 5,000,000 acres and have begun plans or actually started construction for the irrigation of about 10,000,000 other acres. Yet we in Canada have irrigated only about 155,000 acres. I certainly do not think this compares favourably with what has been done in the United States. As far as I can see from what the minister has said tonight, I do not think the reasons or the excuses he has given for not proceeding are sufficient. I suppose lack of funds is the main reason. I think the S3,000.000 we are bringing down in the estimates tonight is disgraceful, to say the least, for meeting this western problem.


James Garfield Gardiner: This S3.000.000 has nothing to do with the projects my hon. friend is discussing.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I realize that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unless it may be a small part for engineering.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I realize that; but that is the amount we are giving for irrigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, that is not irrigation.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There may be a few Trillions more; I do not know. I will not argue with the minister about that tonight. But last year, two years ago, I saw this parliament vote in gifts and loans almost $2 billion for the reclamation of other countries, and probably most of those amounts were justified. If we could give so much to these other countries I do not see why we cannot find a few million dollars for a project so badly needed here at home, and one which would be self-liquidating. In the war years we spent SI 10 million, which I think was the amount mentioned by the minister as the total sum required for western irrigation, in a few weeks; yet here we cannot find that much money for this work today. Recently President Truman said that probably there would soon be great benefits from the St. Lawrence river project. I think that is so, and I believe many Canadians would support it; but many westerners would find it difficult to vote for that project before getting the irrigation they need. I think easterners are . going to need that project just as much as westerners, because, as the hon. member for Davenport has said, they will soon need markets. During the war years our factories increased their capacity by about forty per cent, and we know that when the Canadian loans are gone some of these foreign countries will not be able to continue to buy from Canada. Where are the eastern manufacturers to sell their products when that time comes. I suggest to hon. members from the east that perhaps then they will be glad to have people living in these irrigated areas on the prairies, who will be able to use some of their manufactured products.
I have several questions I should like to ask the minister in this connection. In my constituency we have been waiting years for something to be done in connection with, irrigation.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I suggest that those matters come under the next item. Could we pass the rehabilitation item and go on to irrigation, what comes next? The St. Mary river dam is the first of the big projects, and it is the next item. If the question my hon. friend has in mind has to do with the Saskatchewan river project, and other similar projects, they are not provided for in this item.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: All right; I will leave those questions until then. But I want to-ask the minister one question which I am quite sure applies to this item. A few months ago I had the privilege of hearing the min-

Supply-Agriculture
ister speak about irrigation. A few nights before that, he had spoken in Lethbridge, and the Financial Post reported him in this way:
He assured industry and agriculture that . . . $100 million in federal funds will be made available for a long-range programme of irrigation.
Will the minister tell us if that is to be over a long period of years, with just a little coming through each year, or if we are to get that $100 million some time soon. Will he tell us, furthermore, whether the government is waiting to use this irrigation programme as a post-war project?


James Garfield Gardiner: That has to do with the next item, also.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: All right; if the minister will answer it then, I can wait, but I want that information.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In view of the minister's statement that the reclamation work in the maritimes would be better discussed on the items in the supplementary estimates, I shall reserve what I have to say until that time; but I would point out that, as far as the repairing of dykes in the maritime provinces is concerned, it is a matter of urgent necessity. Time is really of the essence in connection with the work there, because these dykes are disintegrating, not only every year, but every month. When the supplementary estimates are brought down this year I hope they will not be simply for investigation, but that there will be something for the reconstruction of the dykes in the maritimes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The provincial ministers have already been here. Mr. Taylor, minister of agriculture of New Brunswick, was here. Mr. McKenzie was not able to come, but his deputy was here, and we have discussed the possibilities in connection with expenditures for this year. An amount is being placed in the supplementary estimates. I am not at liberty tonight to say what that amount is, but I can discuss it freely at that time.


Mr. QUELCH:: The members of this group have a very high appreciation of the work done under P.F.R.A. in the past and at the present time, but we feel that the time has come for the government to launch larger scale projects than have been undertaken in the past. We particularly feel that the conservation of the waters of the Rocky mountain watershed is of paramount importance, not merely to western Canada, but to the whole of Canada. While it was not possible to do anything along that line during the war, we believe that the time has now come when the government should undertake that
work. We consider it important that irrigation projects should not be looked upon as a form of relief works for the purpose of providing employment. I believe the minister will agree with that statement, but I am not so sure the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will agree with it, because I understand his department look upon reconstruction projects mainly as a means of providing employment. Of course if that attitude is taken it means delay, a continued loss of wealth, and a permanent loss in the form of dried-out- crops and soil erosion. During the spring in western Canada there is a very heavy run-off of water that may be urgently needed a month from now. A great deal of that water could have been saved if larger scale projects had been undertaken. Of course there is the other important point, that we are under a moral obligation to provide irrigation projects in the drought areas of the west, because those people were encouraged to settle in that area, in spite of the fact that the government of the day knew it wa9 not suitable for settlement.
I want now to make a few remarks and to ask a few questions in regard to the Red Deer river diversion scheme.


James Garfield Gardiner: That comes under the
next item, too.


Victor Quelch: Then when we get to
that item I hope the minister will not say we can discuss only the St. Mary river project.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I won't.


Victor Quelch: Last year we had an item of $10 million under the reconstruction department. This year we have an item of $5 million, and I understand that the minister hopes to get another $5 million. Last year I waited until that $10 million item came up; then I was told by the Minister of Reconstruction I should have discussed the matter under P.F.R.A., because it would be under P.F.R.A. that the work would be carried out. So this year I have no intention of waiting until the reconstruction estimates come up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think I shall have
to make a few remarks on this item, because I want to talk about more than just irrigation. I am sure a number of the fruit farmers and-others I represent, and all those in the Okanagan who were mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops, are somewhat disappointed at the delay in the plans of the government in connection with the application of P.F.R.A. to British Columbia. I support what was said by other hon. members
Supply-Agriculture

as to the great needs in the Cariboo and the Okanagan with regard to irrigation, but I just want to add a word or two about conditions as they exist in my own district of Kootenay West. We are not actually in the dry belt. We can grow crops without irrigation, but in some districts and on some land there would be a greatly increased yield with irrigation. I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that in this district some thousands of acres are owned by the provincial government. There is one large tract consisting of several thousands of acres, formerly owned by the Christian community of universal brotherhood, which has been taken over by the provincial government from the mortgage companies, and which, I believe, could be developed very well under this scheme. The provincial government owns the land, and the provincial and federal governments could cooperate in developing it. Then the land could be sold to settlers. It is ideal for tree and small fruits. Then again there are thousands of acres of first-class bottom land alongside various rivers and lakes which can be reclaimed at very little expense. I know of one tract of some ten thousand acres in the Lardeau valley, first-class black loam, natural meadow, which can be reclaimed by lowering the bed of the river four or five feet, and this can be done at relatively small expense. The cost, however, would be too great for any small group of individuals to undertake. Then again we have a number of smaller areas along the Arrow, Slocan and Kootenay lakes that could be greatly helped by this type of legislation.
In these areas you would not be developing land that is marginal. You would be developing land which has a high productive value.
I think I am quite safe in saying there are probably fewer mortgages on the farms of my constituency than in any other constituency in the west. A mortgage there is quite a rare thing, which indicates productivity of the land and the skill and thrift of the farmers working it. However I am under the impression that this act might not be flexible enough to meet the varied conditions across Canada. I have spoken of these provincial lands, the dried-out land, and that which requires drainage, which I think should be developed jointly by the dominion and provincial governments. If the government is going to go ahead and assist these smaller areas which are already developed, something should also be done to assist the people I have mentioned, even if it is only to the extent of providing money at low interest rates, on long terms.
The people I represent are not people who ask for something for nothing. They built up 
that country as a result of their own labour. Possibly this act is not flexible enough to cover the varied conditions that exist across Canada. I throw out that suggestion to the minister, and I hope that at some time in the future he will take time to visit that district and see its potentialities. If he does I am sure he will be convinced that there are great possibilities for the application of this act in providing assistance to those farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I point out that no one has been discussing this vote. This vote applies only to the Palliser triangle and it is to build small dams and dug-outs as well as to provide community pastures and small irrigation projects. The discussion which has nowr taken place should have been on item 36, and all the other discussions should have been on item 31. Unless someone wants to discuss small dams and dug-outs and pastures provided for in this vote, perhaps it might be passed and we could get on to the proper vote.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mention has been made of various areas in British Columbia which should be brought in under the P.F.R.A. and I was wondering if the
Creston area is one of those?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Creston area is not in. None of British Columbia comes under the act for which this item provides money.
Mr. HARIvNESS: I will make the minister happy by staying strictly on this item. A thing I have had in mind for a long time is how the dividing line is drawn between the P.F.R.A. and the P.F.A.A. It seems to me that those two acts are working against each other, at least in the southern part of Saskatchewan and in Alberta. To illustrate, you may have a piece of land which is under P.F.R.A. and where people are being paid not to grow crops, to get off the land and go into certain valleys. Then you have another piece of land right next to the first piece where the people are being paid under P.F.A.A. to put in crops which may not grow. It seems to me that one of the great fallacies in these two acts is in an area such as southern Alberta where people will be paid under P.F.R.A. to leave certain areas and gather themselves into a valley, or leave altogether and go somewhere else so that the land may be taken out of cultivation, and in the same area another group of people are paid to stay there and put in crops which they probably will never harvest. They are given so much per acre planted. The thing I want to get is how the-dividing line is drawn or how it is decided which area is under P.F.R.A. and which is under P.F.A.A.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The only area under P.F.R.A. is the Palliser triangle, the dividing line of which runs through the city which my hon. friend represents. It extends northward to Lloydminster and then from Lloyd-minster almost in a straight line across to the Manitoba boundary at the northern end of the Assiniboine basin, then down along the east side of the Assiniboine basin to the Red river. All the area south of that is under P.F.R.A. The hon. member asked as to how the dividing line was drawn between the two.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not need a description of the Palliser triangle.


James Garfield Gardiner: The P.F.A.A. may cover part of that area, or it may go up into the northern country. People are taken from submarginal land and put on good land or land on which water can be placed. That would be done under P.F.R.A. We encourage people to go into valleys which can be irrigated or on to land to which water can be supplied. Under P.F.R.A. we encourage people to get off sub-marginal land. All that is done under the one act. We pay the expenses of moving off the sub-marginal land on to the better land. For example, at Brooks we had 25,000 acres that were irrigated. We moved people off sub-marginal land in different parts of the Palliser triangle on to those 25,000 acres which had been irrigated. All but two of the families so moved are well satisfied and we have had complaints from only one of them.
When we move people off sub-marginal land that land is turned into a community pasture. These pastures run from 40,000 acres up to 115.000 acres. It is fenced in with a permanent fence, as near as you can make a fence permanent with creosoted posts and four barbed wires. The farmers who are left there are given an opportunity to use the pasture by paying fees.
It is correct to say that through P.F.R.A. we do encourage farmers to leave submarginal lands in order that they may be fenced in as community pastures. Once that is done, the farmers around the pasture are organized into grazing associations. We first take those in the first mile round about the pasture. Then we take those in the second mile, and we continue until such time as we have a sufficient number of farmers with sufficient stock to utilize two-thirds of the grazing capacity of the pasture. They then pa}- fees in order to put their live stock in, and the costs of operating the pasture are paid out of those fees.
When once those pastures are formed the sub-marginal land is taken out from under the P.F.A.A. There is nothing paid on those sub-83166-273
marginal lands. The only places where payments are made are on lands roundabout the pastures. The same principle applies all the way through the application of the legislation. For example, we say that a person who has had assistance in the form of irrigation cannot receive payments under the P.F.A.A. We have assisted him by putting water on his land; therefore he does not get assistance under the P.F.A.A.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is just what I am getting at. You say that all the people surrounding the community pasture are taken out from P.F.A.A. except those who still happen to be staying there?


James Garfield Gardiner: After the pasture is out from under P.F.A.A., the people who are utilizing the land roundabout do not draw on the acreage in the pasture; they draw only on the acreage they themselves are cultivating.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What the minister has said is quite correct, but it seems to me that the P.F.R.A. is the act which, if anything, will reclaim a lot of these dried-out areas in the west. I am all in favour of it and I believe it should be extended. However, one of the things in the way of its extension is the fact that sub-marginal lands are being maintained in cultivation or semi-cultivation under P.F.A.A. There is a conflict between the two acts and I wanted to get a reasonable explanation, which I do not think the minister has given.


Mr. FAIR:: Is there an extension this year of the area in which dugouts are being constructed?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no extension of the area except that there may be a municipality here or there where it is shown we have not drawn the line in the right place in order to take in the entire basin of some particular river.


Mr. WRIGHT:: To what extent are community pastures being extended this year? If they are being extended, where are you moving the people who are in those areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one in Manitoba. The only work that is being undertaken up to the present in Saskatchewan is the extending of pastures already formed. Areas are being added to them, and they are being added only because people have gone off the land. There may be one or two persons there, but mostly they would be on the edge of the area that is being taken into the pasture.

Supply-Agriculture


Percy Ellis Wright: There are no large movements?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: It has been suggested that we revert to item 26.
Marketing service-
26. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $777,599.	[DOT]


William Scottie Bryce: 
James Garfield Gardiner: There are three cold storages in Winnipeg toward which we have made payments. The act provides that where we are satisfied, after inspection, that the cold storage is required and that all the conditions are met, we can pay thirty per cent of the cost of building the cold storage. That applies of course, to any organization, cooperative or otherwise, which is making cold storage available to the public. The Winnipeg plants are handled the same as the others. The only reason the payments are higher is that the costs of the plants are higher in Winnipeg than they would be in the smaller communities. The last agreement I think was made two years ago. Thirty per cent of the cost is paid, half of it the first year and the other half is divided over the next four years.
As to the small lockers, the provision in the act has been in the past that not more than fifteen per cent of any plant could be utilized for putting in small lockers. There was a reason for that under the conditions which prevailed before. These plants were practically all in cities and towns and were put in for the purpose that cold storage is usually put in for, to take in products from the public and store them and charge for storage. It was thought wise to limit the locker space to fifteen per cent, but that limitation is now being removed so that, where a group of people have got together for the purpose of putting in these lockers in the smaller communities, payment can be made on the same basis as for the larger plants. That is an entirely new provision. I do not think any payment has actually been made under it. The regulation has been changed within the last month or six weeks.


William Scottie Bryce: Will that be retroactive?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not considered that up to the moment. There are a number of these plants, but most of them we know of are put in by individuals who are simply hiring out the lockers. It is not intended that under the new regulation payments shall be made on those. There are reasons why that would be objectionable. But it is possible for a group of farmers or a group of village people or farmers to get together and organize one of these plants to serve the community, and then the payments can be made.


William Scottie Bryce: In the smaller country towns where the farmers get together and build themselves a plant consisting of small lockers entirely, they can still get the thirty per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would that apply where a cooperative is already in operation, say a cooperative store, and the cooperative store decides to expand and build a cooperative locker in connection with the store?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a cooperative in the sense referred to here, but my hon. friend is aware that some organizations known as cooperatives are more or less joint stock companies.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am speaking of a true cooperative.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, where it is a true cooperative.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. STEPHENSON:: May we revert to item 28?


James Garfield Gardiner: Are we going back over them all?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I just want to ask a question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Very well.
Marketing service-
28. Live stock and live stock products, $795,199.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I wish to ask a question with reference to the restricted area in. Durham county from which I come. It was made a restricted area in 1937. We have had one or two tests up there and the county is due for another test this year, but possibly because of the shortage of veterinaries the test may not be made. Can the minister say whether that test will be made this year in Durham county?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would have some difficulty in locating that information at the moment, but if the hon. member would permit me to reply to him by letter I will indi-

Supply-Agriculture
cate in writing what is being done in Durham county. Generally speaking, what is being done is this. As soon as we can obtain the services of a veterinarian the check will be made. That is what we are doing.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: The federation at a meeting recently was preparing a petition to present to the government. I should like to be in a position to inform them what is being done if I could have the minister's reply this week.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I can let my hon. friend have it tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
SI. St. Mary river dam project, $1,500,000.
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have four simple questions in regard to the South Saskatchewan irrigation project. Has a satisfactory dam site yet been located for this project? Have they found a site where they can actually build the dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our engineers have
located what they think is a satisfactory site. The recommendation they have made and the information upon which it is based have been sent to the consulting engineer, General Ferguson, who has been over the whole area. The report has not yet come back. I had expected it long before this. But we think we have located the proper site.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Can the minister say whether actual construction work will be commenced on that project this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say at the moment whether or not it will be started this year. Once we get that report, I shall have to approach Reconstruction for funds from the amount which will be voted under Reconstruction, the $5,000,000. I cannot say at the moment what the position will be.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Can the minister say offhand how much has been appropriated in the estimates as they stand today for that project this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Whatever was used for the purpose was taken out of the $10 million that we voted last year; that is, $10 million of Reconstruction. Whatever was utilized last year for engineering purposes was received from Reconstruction; it was not out of this vote. It was taken out of the amount which was voted for Reconstruction, and it was noted in the estimates last year that we could draw from the $10 million vote. The amount is $115,000.
83166-273J


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I know the minister is anxious to have this project completed. Everybody is wondering why the delay in this project. Will the minister say whether it is government policy to hold this project over as a measure to help solve our employment a few years hence? Would that be the reason for the delay?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the irrigation work is not bound up in that class at all. The irrigation work is not among those projects put on the shelf, so to speak. Irrigation projects are intended to be development projects which should be carried on whether we require relief or not; but it will be affected to this extent, that it is more difficult to get labour and material in times when work is plentiful than in times when work is not plentiful, and there might be some delay if the greater part of our labour was fully employed at something else. It might be more difficult to get them for that work then; but I would say that up to the moment, the delays, if there are delays-I would not classify .them as delays-the time that it has taken up to the moment has been fully required in order to satisfy ourselves that a reasonable site had been found where we could have a reasonable chance of making a success of building a dam and utilizing it for the double purpose of power and irrigation.


Victor Quelch: I am very glad to see this item of $1,500,000 for this project. I, and the people in the Acadia constituency, realize that there is a very good reason why the federal government should proceed with this project, because of the agreement that we have with the United States. However, the people of the constituency of Acadia are very much interested, as the minister knows, in the Red Deer diversion project. I am not going to go into the details of this project because I have placed them on record on several previous occasions. The project provides for the irrigation of 500,000 acres. As far as I can understand, the surveys have now been completed and a permit has been granted by the provincial government to divert 750.000 acre feet of water a year from the Red Deer river. I also understand that the federal government and the provincial government have reached an agreement regarding the joint allocation of the costs and administration so that, as far as I know, all that is now holding up the project is the decision of the government to proceed with the construction. Last year when I raised this question on the estimates of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply-I notice that he is now in his seat- on the $10 million item he told me that I
Supply-A griculture

could raise it on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture because there was nothing to prevent the Minister of Agriculture from putting an item in if he so desired. Apparently the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply did not desire to put it in his estimates. I should like to read to the Minister of Agriculture what he said last year when this matter was discussed. I am reading from page 2025 of Hansard of May 30, 1946:
Ever since about 1938 we have been doing a certain amount of engineering work on the project. The engineering work which is now being done is the checking of that work by an expert . . .
I would hesitate to say that we shall be in a position this summer to call for tenders on the work . . .
Mr. Quelch:	There is a good chance of going
ahead next year, then?
Mr. Gardiner:	I think so.
I was wondering whether the minister could give a progress report on the Red Deer diversion and what likelihood there is of the government proceeding with the project in the very near future.


James Garfield Gardiner: The engineering report on the Red Deer diversion, that is the P.F.R.A. report, came to me about a month ago. It has been gone over with the idea of checking the amounts that it is likely to cost, and the report has now been referred to the consulting engineer. That is the stage at which it is now; but I did discuss the matter with the government of Alberta last January when I was in Edmonton. The understanding that we had after the discussion was that the St. Mary project would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible as the first project, and second in importance, consideration should be given to a completion of the Bow river project which has been underway for a long time and that we should follow that up. with the Red Deer project. I am quite satisfied that with the programme which is ahead of us it would not be possible to start with the Red Deer programme this year. If we go on with the St. Mary project and spend the money which is voted, $1,500,000 on the St. Mary project and then proceed with the same work on the Bow river project, costing probably a quarter of a million dollars the work on the Red Deer will have to stand over until another year, even if the reports that we get are satisfactory to proceed upon. At the moment I am not in a position to say whether we can secure money for that purpose a year from now, but we have money sufficient to take care of the engineering and all the investigational work which is being done.
[Mr. Quelch.l


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say
whether the reason the government cannot proceed with the Bow river project at the same time as the St. Mary project is largely a matter of cost, or is it the difficulty of getting the necessary men and materials to do the work?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a combination of both.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I was very glad to hear what the minister had to say to the effect that he was not satisfied with the appropriations made for these two large projects for the twofold purpose of irrigation and power. I should like to support the hon. member for Moose Jaw who indicated that, in effect, we are just spending what might be termed a drop in the bucket as compared with what is necessary to develop our rivers in this country so that we might be able to have a more stable economy, not only in such areas as I come from in Saskatchewan, but also in some of the other large sites which have been mentioned here this evening. Anyone who has lived through the depression in the drought areas as I have will recognize that there is a great deal that can be done if we vote the money and scientifically attack this problem.
Since I have been a. member representing the constitutency of Assiniboia-and I refer specifically to the Souris river project-I have been most interested in the development of the project. I have gone down there and inspected it to the best of my ability and have made recommendations to the Department of Agriculture. The authorities of the P.F.R.A. tell me that the Souris project lends itself to irrigation perhaps better than any other project in Saskatchewan. I have also gone with the provincial member for the constituency of Souris-Estevan and interviewed P.F.R.A. officials. I am told that we can irrigate from
3,000	to 10,000 acres in -that area cheaper than perhaps any other area in the province. I say to the minister I believe that this is a project which, if given the attention of his department, can be developed to take care of thirty or forty returned men, preferably, and set them up on a basis of permanent homes. They could take thirty to eighty acres of land irrigated by the pump system and go into intensive farming, producing vegetable market gardens. In addition to that, they could have running back from the main irrigated projects tracts of land where they could have dairy herds. I say to the minister that this project would lend itself to further development whereby we might be able to set up cooperative canners to take care of the tiuck farming

Supply-Agriculture
which I believe is feasible there. I would urge the minister to give cooperation to the provincial government which is giving support to this idea so that we might see something come out of it in the near future.


Eric Bowness McKay: Would the minister indicate what progress has been made with regard to the Wascana creek and Many Bones creek project in the Regina-Sedley area?


James Garfield Gardiner: The engineering work has all been done in relation to it and the cost determined around $125,000. The possibility of sharing the cost has been discussed with the provincial government and an agreement has been reached that an amount should be paid by each, but we did not think it wise -it was brought up last year and the engineering was completed then-to take anything out of the $3 million, which is the item under which that would come if it were being done as against putting in dug-outs and small dams to provide stock watering supplies for the farmers at the present time. It may be that in due course we shall proceed with it.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is it planned to build one or more?


James Garfield Gardiner: Either two or three.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
S3. To provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, $1,700,000.
Mr. DANIEL:: This is to provide for assistance to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories, and there is a reduction of $300,000 for the coming year. My observation would be that within ten or fifteen years we may be able to do away with this item altogether. The hon. member for Lanark the other night mentioned the fact that there were twenty fewer cheese factories in eastern Ontario than there were the year before. In western Ontario it may not be quite as bad as that, but what is happening up there? If this trend of events continues for another ten or fifteen years we shall have a few cheese factories left there, because what is happening in western Ontario is this. A * man improves his factory, gets it in first-class working shape, and one of the large concentrated evaporated milk plants comes along and buys that factory. That does not necessarily put the factory out of business as a cheese factory, because at certain times of the year, when there is a flush of milk, they do make cheese, but in the winter months when milk is short they take the milk for their concentrated milk plants. Therefore the minister would do well to see what can be done
to encourage the production of cheese. I am not blaming him for this condition. I am not blaming the government, nor am I blaming those men who get an opportunity to sell factories and make a good profit; and I cannot blame the manufacturers of concentrated milk for buying a factory. But it is a condition that will certainly put the cheese factories out of business, in western Ontario at least, in the not too distant future.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I should like to ask the minister how this $300,000 reduction comes about. Has the minister definitely made up his mind that production of cheese will be so much less this year that he will not require the $300,000? I notice that $250,000 of the $300,000 is taken off the premium to be paid on quality cheese. There is no doubt that this premium on quality cheese has done much to increase the quality of cheese in this country, and I should think the minister ought not to make reductions at this particular time. Last night he endeavoured to tell us that cheese production in Ontario and Quebec was a month behind that of other years. If that should be the case, there may be a considerable increase in the production of cheese within the next few months, and it may be necessary that this amount of money should then be in the estimates in order that subsidies can be paid on this quality cheese. The other $50,000 is taken off the improvement of cheese factories, and I should like to ask the minister why there is the reduction of $50,000 in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of decrease is $50,000 on construction subsidies and $250,000 on the premiums. The reason is partly as suggested, that there is anticipated a reduction in cheese production. There was a reduction last year. When we put through the vote of $2 million a year ago we were anticipating a larger production than we actually had, but it was estimated when these estimates were prepared that there would be some further reduction. That partly takes care of it. It does not make any difference whether there is or is not. If claims are made and amounts are due, under the legislation we must find the money. This is only an estimate of what we think will be required, and if more is required we shall require to have a supplementary next year to cover it. It will have to be paid whether it is in this vote or not, because the legislation provides for it.


George James Tustin: I realize that, and I realize the difficulties that some factories have had in the past. When it was late in the season and the Department of Agriculture claimed
Supply-A griculture

they had not more money left in these appropriations a considerable part was held up for some months before it was paid to the factories. I know of a number of factories that had to go to the bank and borrow money to pay subsidies to their patrons while they waited for several months to receive their money from the department.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that none of these cases happened in connection with the federal government. There are provincial subsidies too, you know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
35. To provide for administrative expenses, Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1941, $69,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: This item has to do with
the Agricultural Prices Support Act. In 1945, at the dominion provincial production conference it was requested, I believe, that there be a certain acreage of potatoes in New Brunswick. The amount was 68,700 acres. The farmers planted 68,700 acres of potatoes and had an excellent crop. As a matter of fact, it was so good that they could not find a market for it. The agricultural prices board, I believe, guaranteed the farmers in New Brunswick that if they would sell their potatoes to the starch factories they would get a price of $1.65 a barrel. I understand that is correct. In the constituency of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), who is away on account of illness, and who is interested in this matter, there were two starch factories, and the day after the prices board agreed to pay this price one of the starch factories was burned, with the result that the farmers could sell only a small quantity of surplus potatoes to another factory at Grand Falls, New Brunswick. The minister's department has received petitions from the potato producers of that section asking that, in view of the fact that this starch factory was burned, the board adjust prices to the potato producers so that they receive the $1.65 which was guaranteed by the starch factory if the potatoes were sold to them.
My question to the minister is this:	Is
any provision being made to pay the difference between the price that the potato farmers received and the amount that was guaranteed bv the starch factory? I understand that the price they received was much less than that guaranteed by the factory. Will the minister please let me know what the situation is?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount paid for potatoes diverted to processing plants under P.C. 4295 was as follows: In New Brunswick, quantity, 241,764^ barrels. The amount paid is $120,837. I think I should give these figures

in hundredweights because I have not the second one in barrels. In New Brunswick, 198,763 hundredweight-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I suggest to the minister that he might save time. I have not asked for the amount that was paid. He just mentioned an amount there which was small. There were some 15,000,000 barrels of potatoes produced in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and there were 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 which could not be sold; 300,000 or
400,000	barrels to the starch factory is only a drop in the bucket. What I asked the minister was this. On the representations of the different departments in New Brunswick for the payment of the difference between what was guaranteed if they sold to the starch factory and what they received, did the government or the prices board take into consideration the paying of this difference in view of the fact that few of the potatoes went to the starch factory?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand all that and I will get around to it in a minute.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thought the minister
wanted to save time, and I was trying to help him.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have one more figure to give and I should like to give it. Prince Edward Island, quantity, 69,803 hundredweight, and the amount paid was $22,336.52, making a total of $143,173.52 that was paid.
The question that is raised is as to whether there was any amount paid or whether the board has decided as to whether it would make payment of the difference between what might have been guaranteed and what some potatoes might have been sold for. The answer to that is that the matter was considered and it was decided that there was not any obligation, under the circumstances, to make further payment; and that if payment were made on the basis on which it was asked for, it would require the consideration of payment, not only there, but right across Canada for the same purpose.
The other part of the answer is that eventually the potato crop was all sold at a much higher price than anyone expected it to be at the time this agreement was entered into; that is, having the whole crop under consideration, a much higher return was received than was expected. Part of that was done through negotiating a contract with Britain to take 70,000 tons from Prince Edward Island which, by the way, was more than delivered; and there is the further fact that, as is reported in the press today-I think it is editorial criticism-the Americans overdid the

Supply-A griculture
job of destroying potatoes, and after they had done that, the potatoes of New Brunswick were sold at a much higher price than anyone expected they would be. As a matter of fact, at one time we were being urged to stop shipment of potatoes out of Canada in order to make it possible to keep down the price of potatoes. We did not take that action. The final position was that the potato crop of the maritimes was sold at a much higher level than anyone expected it to be.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not my understanding. As far as the United States disposal of their potatoes was concerned, there was a great waste. We know that, but the United States government paid their farmers $2.20. My understanding is that the farmers in New Brunswick received fifty cents less for the potatoes than they would have received had they sold at the price of $1.65 to the starch factories. I know there were some potatoes from Prince Edward Island-three million bushels-sold to Great Britain. But New Brunswick did not benefit to any great extent from that. As I understand the minister's statement, the government has refused to pay the difference between what the farmers would have received had they sold to the starch factories and what they actually did receive where they sold otherwise.


James Garfield Gardiner: The undertaking was to take at a certain price all the potatoes which were left on May 1. As a matter of fact, there were not any potatoes left on May 1, to be supplied at that price. The potatoes were all being marketed by that time; and any potatoes that were sold before at a lower price were sold, of course, under the arrangement.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I did not expect this discussion on potatoes to develop. I received a telegram. The minister just stated that all the potatoes had been marketed. I have information to the contrary.


James Garfield Gardiner: They had better make their claim; that is all they require to do.


Benoît Michaud: There is no claim to be made; but I received a telegram-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There would not be much use in making a claim because the minister says they are not going to pay.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. Any potatoes that are left unsold after May 1 can be offered to the government, and we have to buy them at $1 a bag. None has been offered. I think we are quite justified in saying that there are not any potatoes left, at least that can sell at a higher price.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Benoît Michaud: I was not through, Mr. Chairman. The remarks I wish to make arise out of a statement the minister just made to the effect that all the potatoes aje marketed.
I was somewhat under that impression until I received a telegram on Friday-a copy of which was sent to the minister's secretary- from a member of the legislative assembly in Victoria county informing me that there were quite a few potatoes left. He was complaining that we were allowing United States potatoes to come into this country, with the result that this was bringing the price of our potatoes down. He asked me to make a recommendation along that line, and to try to prevent United States production from coming in, in order to enable our farmers on the Saint John river to market the remainder of their potatoes.
I have not the telegram with me-it is in my office-but the minister has a copy of it. I had to leave on Friday; I just came back. The answer I received was about something else altogether, informing me that the price was above the support price. I know it is above the support price. It has been since about April 20, when the United States started buying from us. Naturally prices went up above the support price from May 1. A great many of our potatoes have been marketed, but now I understand that the farmers on the Saint John river, at Grand Falls, are complaining that they still have fifty or 100 carloads; I do not remember the figure, but the minister has it. The difficulty they are having in marketing at the present time, as represented to me, is this. Potatoes were coming in from the United States; and that has bothered our farmers on the Saint John river and prevented them from marketing their potatoes at a fair price. Has the minister any further information on this point?


James Garfield Gardiner: Over the week-end they have sold fifty carloads from there to the United States. I presume they are selling them at United States prices, which are quite high. That is the reason we do not get them at $1. The agreement made months ago-last fall, as a matter of fact-was that the government would take at that price any potatoes which were left at May 1. My understanding is that there were no potatoes offering at that price on May 1, which must mean that there is a market for them somewhere at a higher price than that. Of course there are potatoes coming in from the United Staten now, and they are new potatoes. I presume the potatoes we had
Supply-A griculture

in the diningroom today on the sixth floor were new potatoes from the United States.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They were not very good.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those potatoes are selling at a price two or three times as much as old potatoes are selling for in Canada.


Benoît Michaud: Then I should like to ask if there are any old potatoes coming into Canada from the United States at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand not; but there are old Canadian potatoes going to the United States.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to ask the minister a question or two in regard to the board that was set up. In 1944, when the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed^ as reported at page 5576 of Hansard for July 29, 1944, the minister said:
... I make the suggestion to the house that we should content ourselves for the time being with the appointment of a permanent chairman and take two officials of the department and make them pro tem members of the board.
Our intention is that the board shall immediately begin to study the relationship of the conditions which now exist to the prices which now exist and that all facts with regard to matters of that kind be made available for use immediately the war is over. If I am the minister at that time it is my intention to appoint two permanent members of the board to act with the chairman when the operative part of section No. 9 is brought into effect.
Based on that statement, I want to ask what, recommendations or reports were made by the temporary board, and whether those reports are available. Various agricultural organizations have been interested in trying to find out just what work was done by that temporary board and what reports were made.
I should also like to know what members have been appointed to the permanent board, and if that permanent board is making further reports.


James Garfield Gardiner: An annual report was tabled last session and another this session, both of which are available to hon. members. The two new appointees are Mr. Proulx, who is a farmer in Quebec, who at one time was an employee of the Quebec government and was also employed at one time on temporary work by this government; and Mr. Earl Kitchen, a farmer of Woodstock, Ontario, who was secretary of the dairy association before his appointment. They will be making reports annually, as the other board did.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then there is an advisory board.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is an advisory board of seventeen members.


Percy Ellis Wright: Were any other reports made in addition to the annual reports?


James Garfield Gardiner: Reports are made every time delegations come to see us. When a delegation comes to discuss dairy products we get a report from the board as to the situation. When they come to discuss meat products, or any other products, we get reports from the board to indicate what are the conditions.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are those public reports, or are they private within the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would doubt very much if they are public. They are the sort of things that pass from officials to a member of the government, advising as to what the position ought to be in relation to certain things. As a rule they are not made public.


William Scottie Bryce: Does the board give support to any other product than potatoes?


Benoît Michaud: There was another point I wanted to bring out in connection with this item, in connection with the bonus paid for potatoes processed into starch. There was a great deal of criticism in my part of the country, particularly along the Saint John river, in regard to the date set for the guaranteed price, which was May 1. I brought up this point during the budget debate. I do not know what the next crop has in store for us, but if it should be necessary to take some action in the fall I should like to impress upon the minister, that while the action taken in regard to the bonus on processed potatoes seems to be quite satisfactory, the other part of the order in council, having to do with the board undertaking to buy as of May 1, fixes the date too late. There has been criticism by the farmers of my section of the country that when officials of the department went along the Saint John river they interviewed just a few big shots and the ordinary men could not get near them. How this diate of May 1 was arrived at, I do not know.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was suggested by the delegation which came here from your area.


Benoît Michaud: I was with that delegation, though I was not there all the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: That recommendation came from them last fall, the first time they were here.


Benoît Michaud: I cannot think they were in their proper spirits, then, to make such a suggestion. It is altogether ridiculous. Early in the year, in January, and possibly before that they began making representations to the effect that it was too late.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Experience showed it to be early?


Benoît Michaud: I would not agree to that. As I say, because of the mistakes made by the United States government our potatoes went up in price, and the government did not have to purchase them after May 1. It was just a little short of miraculous. I again emphasize that if next year it should become necessary to do such purchasing, May 1 is much too late. This year, of course, we had snow until June and1 we have had rain ever since. But in ordinary years we start farming around May 1, and when we start farming the farmers do not have time to market their potatoes.


William Scottie Bryce: I am still waiting for an answer to my question. Did you support anything but potatoes?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; potatoes were the only item that required to be supported. All the others were supported under the agreements made with Britain, and the floors have been maintained at higher levels than investigation would have shown it necessary to maintain.


William Scottie Bryce: Then would you tell the committee how you set a floor price? What knowledge do you go on, or whom do you consult? How do you go about it; because I know you are going to need to support a lot of things before many years. If you could give us an idea of how you go about it I can tell my constituents when they ask me.


James Garfield Gardiner: What we do is negotiate a contract with Great Britain, under which we get the highest price possible. Then we calculate whether that contract price bears the relationship we indicated should be maintained as compared with the last three years of the war. So far, all those prices have more than taken care of what we undertook to take care of.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is hardly right. You had not negotiated a contract with Great Britain-


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not like the way in which my hon. friend, after asking a question, keeps telling me that what I have said is not right. Last night it was not true; tonight it is not right. I do not know what the difference is, but my statement is right.


Percy Ellis Wright: You will admit that you did not negotiate a contract with Great Britain on potatoes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not talking about potatoes. The hon. member was asking about other products.


Percy Ellis Wright: He asked about potatoes, too, and that was the answer you gave. We have not a contract with Great Britain for all these things.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the case of potatoes we took the recommendation of the committee that came here representing the potato people, as I said before.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
S6. To reclaim and to prevent the flooding of valuable agricultural lands in the valley of the Lillooet river, near Pemberton, B.C., $100,000.
Mr. REID:: I have one or two questions to ask the minister, and also something to say about this item.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Thomas Reid: If you want to go on it is all right with me. I want some information concerning this item.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think we can clean it up in a few minutes.


Thomas Reid: This is an item of $100,000 to reclaim and to prevent the flooding of valuable agricultural land in the valley of the Lillooet river. I am wondering why the dominion government has gone in there. I notice that project No. 1 covers 2,604 acres,
2,000	acres of which are Indian lands. My information is that the Indian branch recommended that money should not be spent in there. A little while ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley asked that something be done to prevent erosion and washing away of the banks of the Fraser river, but he did not get very much support. We have to go back to our people and tell them why the dominion government are going to spend nearly half a million dollars in connection with land which some of us think is not worth very much. Project No. 1 will cost $131 per acre and some of us are wondering who asked for this to be done. Is the provincial government putting up any money? Are the farmers putting up any money? I have been through this district, and if the dominion government is to come into our province to do this kind of thing I can point out more valuable land where the farmers have had to carry the load for many years. I want to ask some more questions on this item.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Petition-Bill of Rights

Wednesday, June 18, 1947