Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I had intended moving the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter which I consider to be of national importance, namely, the floods in the province of British Columbia, particularly the Fraser valley; but I understand that under the rules it is not customary to move such a motion if we are going into supply.
I do not wish to weary the house, but I must point out that this has become a very serious matter in British Columbia. It is no longer a Fraser valley matter, but a national matter, since the whole economy of the Pacific coast is involved. I should like to have the assurance of the government that I shall be given the privilege of speaking when estimates come up this afternoon in committee of supply.
I am particularly concerned about the situation in my own riding. I have already purchased my ticket for flight home if I can get an aeroplane, because I consider it my duty to be in my riding at this time. As I have said, this is a serious matter, because lives are at stake and the damage has already exceeded millions of dollars. Last night another dike went in Sumas prairie, and if the river rises thirty-two inches more the town of Chilliwack will be flooded and millions of dollars of damage will be done. I should like to have the assurance that an opportunity will be given me to discuss the matter; otherwise I shall consider it my duty to move the adjourn^ ment of the house.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will this afternoon be introducing a resolution on the diking of marshlands, under which I think the hon. gentleman could say anything he wished to say and be in order.


Mr. HACKETT:: But that is restricted to the maritimes.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copy of an order in council, P.C. 2413, setting up a water board for the three prairie provinces; also copy of order in council P.C. 2412, setting a floor of fifty-eight cents per pound, basis Montreal, under butter.



CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pouliot for concurrence in the first report of the standing committee on debates.
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, resuming the debate on the motion for the adoption of the report of the committee on debates, I have just a few words to say. The whole idea is to improve the publication of the debates so that only corrections and not revisions are made in due course. Hon. members had an opportunity to read the report, which was printed both in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings, and I hope that those who are not members of the committee have read it.
I must pay a special tribute to my colleagues the members of the committee who expedited the proceedings, and to the king's printer, the editor of debates, and Mr. Yves Fortin, who is also a very able man, for the information with which they supplied us. I have one word also to say about the clerk of the committee, Mr. Antonio Plouffe, who was most helpful to the committee and to the chairman in dealing with this matter.
I wish to suggest a slight amendment to the last paragraph of the report, which reads as follows:
Your committee further recommends that the government consider the advisability of increasing the number of complimentary copies of the daily edition of debates to members from ten to sixteen.
It should read thus:
Your committee further recommends that the House of Commons authorize the increasing of the number of complimentary copies of the daily editions of debates to members from ten to sixteen.
Report of Debates Committee

I hope that the house will agree to that. I want to give credit to everyone in this matter. Each member realizes that Hansard must be a true picture of our deliberations here, that nothing of what is said should be changed except when there is a slip. There is no use in painting the lily. Therefore Hansard should be accurate. That is one thing.
The second thing is this. Not long ago I spoke to the king's printer, and he told me that if this method be adopted, and if the suggestion which came from Mr. Young, the editor of debates, be accepted, it will be possible to have the bound Hansard two months after the date the speech is made. If the method had been adopted prior to this session, we would already have the bound Hansard of January, February and March. It will save money also. But I do not insist much on that point, although the saving would be considerable, because the question of the saving of money on printing comes under the jurisdiction of the joint parliamentary committee on printing. It is an altogether different matter. The purpose of the committee on debates is to see to it that the records of the house are accurate, clear and truthful.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to call the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, for three or four minutes to this report, concurrence in which was moved in the house last Wednesday. The motion made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is one of the most important that we have had before us since the last war started. In the first place, may I point out to the house that the people back home in the constituencies know very little-in fact, almost nothing-about what goes on here. They rely on three agencies for their information. The first is printed Hansard. I am glad to see that a large number of public men and businessmen in the district from which I come read it. But at the present time when we are voting large sums of the people's money- nearly two billion dollars in the present estimates-the people have little knowledge of what goes on in the house.
In our city we used to have three morning newspapers and three evening newspapers. No one could criticize them. They have been doing a great work. Those who represent them in the press gallery are discharging a great public duty. During the war an information bureau, which I strongly opposed, was set up.
I always contended that that was a reflection on the press, and a suggestion that they were not doing their duty in letting the public know what was going on. At that time

the newspapers were under censorship. Today there is no censorship. We see the result of it in the debates in the house.
I do not care whether members are given one copy, five copies or ten copies. That is not the point I wish to make. My point is that the public are not getting the information they should be getting about public affairs, when we are voting, in the civil estimates, sums running into two billion dollars of their money. They are not getting the news they should be getting back home in the constituencies. The result is that the people have little or no knowledge of what is going on in public affairs. For instance, with regard to external affairs, days after these matters are discussed here some statement is given out, and the public know absolutely nothing about that particular department. We are dependent on the press and on the radio. The radio is like the tower of Babel, if you ask me. Some people turn it off a moment after they turn it on. Nevertheless they must pay for it. The public has very little advantage from it because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been turned into a department of propaganda. .
It is necessary to see the cause and effect of this lack of information back home in the constituencies. You find it in the halls when you attend meetings. Questions are asked on matters which the predecessors of those who are voters today knew all about. I remember meetings when I was head of the city of Toronto. Some of these were attended by three or four thousand people; the subject under discussion w'as the taking over of the street railway. In provincial and dominion election campaigns these meetings have been superseded by the radio and all that kind of thing. No one can criticize the newspapers, because they always have the last word.
In conclusion I should like to say this. We must see the cause and effect if the public are not kept informed of what is going on. In Toronto, as I say, we used to have six newspapers. Now we only have one in the morning and two in the evening. The two in the evening are the only two I know of that have not increased their rates, and they have been doing splendid work. But they have instituted here what they call the columnist system, and when you read the various columns you find that some have the tendency to write about what is said by leaders and ignore the others. As for myself I do not care. I do not need that kind of publicity. I have never depended on it. I will say, however, that the people are

Report oj Debates Committee
entitled to more information than they are getting today. What the solution is, I do not know.
I am glad the hon. member who introduced this motion has called the attention of the house to this matter. He has been an able chairman. He has called attention to one of the weaknesses in our democratic system, and the agencies we have for making it work. In the last few years I have noticed in the newspapers pages and pages of sporting news and other matters in which a great many of the people may or may not be interested. We cannot criticize the press. They know their own business best. With the high cost of printing, and with the newsprint situation as it is, I do not know how the newspapers are carrying on at all. I wish to say a word of appreciation of their services to the public. I hope that appropriate measures will be introduced to give the public the information to which they are entitled.
I think the hon. gentleman deserves a great deal of credit for having brought this matter to the attention of the house.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, may I in just a word support the motion for concurrence in the report and thank the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), the chairman of the committee, for the slight change he has suggested in the last paragraph. I think I can say on behalf of the committee that it brings the report more into line with what was the understanding of the members of the committee. I am sure that everything in this report is all to the good and deserves the support of the house.
I have just one other word to say. I should like to take this opportunity to express appreciation of the splendid work in connection with Hansard that is done by the reporters on the floor, the amanuenses upstairs, the editor, the associate editor, their staff, the king's printer, and the printers and other workers at the printing bureau. They all do a good job.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Rinfret moves that in the paragraph following paragraph 7 all the words after "that" be deleted and replaced by the words:	"the House of Commons
authorize the advisability of increasing the number of complimentary copies of the daily edition of debates to members from ten to sixteen."


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I think the amendment moved by the chairman of the committee was that the House of Commons authorize the increase, not the advisability. It was intended to authorize the increase in the number.


James Horace King: The clause will read:
Your committee further recommends that the House of Commons authorize the increasing of the number of complimentary copies of the daily edition of debates to members from ten to sixteen.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jean-François Pouliot: Just before the report is adopted I want to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in what he said concerning Hansard. Ours is the best Hansard published in the British empire, and probably in the whole world. That is due to the efficiency and congeniality of those who comprise that staff, and they deserve all credit.
Motion as amended agreed to.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question in connection with the bridge at Saskatchewan Landing. Referring to sessional paper No. 201, tabled yesterday, will the minister tell the house if there has been further communication or correspondence since the telegram of May 5 from himself to the Saskatchewan minister of highways; and if so will he table such additional material?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I do not know of any other communication in this matter. The only thing I recall is that the governor in council has approved the site and proposed construction, and that a copy of the order in council has been sent to the Premier of Saskatchewan.



DIVISION OF WATERS AMONG THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether order in council P.C. 2413. tabled by the minister today, means that the government of Canada and the governments of the three prairie provinces have agreed or are agreeing upon an ovrer-all scheme to control floods on interprovincial rivers?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Speaker. The meaning
Inquiries oj the Ministry

of the order in council is that 'the three provinces and the dominion are agreeing to the setting up of a board whose duty it will be to make recommendations as to the division of the waters, more particularly in the Saskatchewan river system, among the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I believe the setting up of the water board is a most commendable step, but does this mean that before a dam can be built on the Saskatchewan river it will be necessary to have the consent not only of the governor in council but also of the three prairie provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: It means that there is a legal division of the water in streams running from one province into another which has to >be established by some authority. That will be established on the advice of this board. Once the amount of water to which Saskatchewan is entitled is established, of course the other question will be determined by whether we are taking more water than we should take.


John George Diefenbaker: As I read section 5 it simply means that after the water board has determined allocations, before any steps can be taken there must be unanimity among the three western provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: To all intents and purposes that is what it will mean. If one of the provinces or if the three provinces desire to have money spent by the federal government, they will have to agree on some division of the water..


John George Diefenbaker: Unanimously.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not taking on any lawsuits with regard to t'he amount of water we may take from one province as compared with another. That question will have to be decided and agreed upon, and I presume an order in council will have to be passed by each province.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Will the acting minister of immigration make a statement today or early next week with respect to aid granted to immigrants to Canada by allowing those coming from Britain to secure more cash, and what action if any is being or has been taken in the matter?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: I shall be glad to do so.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the government is considering the advisability of extending the basic herd principle, now applicable to cattle, under directive No. 78 of September, 1947, to include sheep, swine and other domestic animals? If this change is to be made, can the minister say when it will come into effect?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: The matter of extending the basic herd principle is being given consideration by the government, and it will probably extend to swine, sheep, purebred horses and so on, but not to poultry. It will be applicable in the year 1948.



EMPIRE TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. TIMMINS (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Having regard to the fact that Canada is suffering a disastrous decrease in her trade with the sterling area countries, will the minister give consideration to taking the necessary steps to call an empire trade conference at an early date?


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: I should like to treat this question as a notice and have an answer given later.

continuation of CEILING PRICE
On the orders of the day:


Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: In view of the fact that under an order in council tabled by the Minister of Agriculture a floor price is established for butter, will the minister tell us whether it is the intention of the government to continue the ceiling price as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the ceiling price is being continued.

Reclamation of Marshlands


Calvert Charlton Miller: I should like to ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture in that connection.


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be quite in
order to discuss that whole matter in connection with my estimates, which will be up shortly.



DREDGING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROBINSON (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Is his department doing anything toward having the 1947 contract for dredging at Kincardine harbour completed as soon as possible?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I understand the contract was not completed last year, and we will proceed with it.



MARSHLANDS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to present a bill to assist the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the reclamation and development of marshlands in the said provinces by the construction and reconstruction of works necessary therefor and the purchase of required machinery and equipment. Works may be undertaken only on the recommendation of an advisory committee to be established under the act and upon terms and conditions agreed upon with the province concerned prior to the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-five. The Minister of Agriculture is empowered to appoint necessary temporary officers and employees to be paid out^ of the consolidated revenue fund with provision also for the payment of expenses of members of the advisory committees.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. CRUICK8HANK: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take any more of the time of the committee than is absolutely necessary, but I believe I should speak briefly concerning the flood situation, particularly as it concerns my riding and, I suggest, as it concerns the whole of Canada.
Flooding in British Columbia is more now than a matter of local concern. I might explain briefly that in the Fraser valley area surrounding the cities of New Westminster and
Vancouver there are some seven diking districts. The last flood we had was in 1894, and the last break in dikes was about 1920 or 1921. I mention the date of the last break in order to bring to the attention of the committee, through you, Mr. Chairman, the importance to the whole of Canada of preventing these breaks.
At the time of the last break in 1920 or 1921 the great Canadian National Railways were put out of action for forty-eight hours. We were able to stem the hole in the dike at that time, but despite that fact the Canadian National Railway lines to the Pacific coast were out of action for that length of time.
I would emphasize, sir, the gravity of the situation as it is today. I am particularly concerned, of course, with my own riding of Fraser Valley, but I must point out that the present situation concerns the whole economy of Canada. What would happen if any unfortunate international incident should take place -I will not go into details-involving the cutting off of the Pacific coast for some months through the inability of the two great trans-Canada railway systems to get through? What would happen to the economy of Ontario and Quebec if the trans-Canada railways were cut off for two or more months?
As I have said, we were able to stem the hole in the dike on this earlier occasion; yet one of the railway systems was unable to get through for hours. Two dikes remain at the present time; if they go, then both the trans-Canada railway systems will be unable to get through for two to six months. Hon. members must realize how important this is not only to the Fraser Valley constituency alone but to the whole country.
Only last night and this morning naval boats were sent in to evacuate hundreds of families in the Fraser valley area. No estimate has yet been made as to how much stock is lost, but we have an idea how much money has been lost, and it can be counted in millions of dollars.
Many hon. members have had the pleasure of visiting British Columbia, and are no doubt familiar with the fertile Chilliwack area. Today at twelve o'clock if the river rose another thirty-two inches the town of Chilliwack and the whole of the surrounding district would be under water. This would mean a loss of millions upon millions of dollars. While I do not think this matter should be considered from the point of view of dollars and cents, let us not forget that the dominion government has millions of dollars invested in the Canadian National Railways in that area. Both the railways would go out of action.
Reclamation of Marshlands
[Stage Direction]
I am told that the brother-in-law of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) lost his farm the day before yesterday. In the particular district in which I live the dike is holding. My own farm buildings are above the high-water mark, and cattle have been brought there from the surrounding district. They are on my high land today, because they cannot be left on the lower ground. Farmers have moved their stock out of the buildings to places behind the second remaining dike.
I wish to impress upon the house the seriousness of this matter. On Friday last school children six or eight years of age and upwards worked in filling sandbags in an endeavour to hold the water back.
A few weeks ago hon. members of the opposition held a convention in Ottawa, upon which occasion a friend of mine, the former provincial president, came here from Agassiz. His drug store is now flooded. I know the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has just returned, and he tells me that the water is adjacent to the railway. As I say, I do not know how much money has been lost, or how many cattle have been lost. I do not think, however, that that is the important point. When even one life is at stake in Canada, this house must give the matter serious consideration.
The reason for the flood this year is exactly the same as it was in 1894. We had heavy snowfalls this year in the mountains, and a very late spring. Ordinarily we have a gradual run-off, the high water averaging about 17 feet. Measured this morning it was up 22 feet, due to the cold and late spring in British Columbia, and the fact that the run-off came very suddenly.
I wish to point out, through you, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion-and I am expressing the opinion of the people of my riding- there would have been no damage if the great Fraser river channel had been kept clear. Opposite Matsqui islands, where the large river boats used to come up, and where the river was about three quarters of a mile wide, any time now at low water you can throw a stone across. The sandbar has filled it up. The water cannot get away. Even if we have a normal run-off, the sandbars are there. The only protection we have is one dredge forty years old. This one dredge cannot even keep the mouth of the river open. That is why I think the federal government comes into the matter.
We cannot afford locally to finance the damage that has been done. We cannot afford to finance the protection that is needed if in the next forty-eight hours, or

*maybe within the next week, the ports of Vancouver and New Westminster have to be protected by keeping the two railways running.
One of the ministers is now out in British Columbia. We are now asking the dominion government to assume its responsibility because it is not a matter which concerns only the Fraser valley or British Columbia. It is a national matter, and the economy of Canada is affected.
I wish to say we have every confidence in the engineer who is in charge in British Columbia, but we are suggesting it is not a local matter, and that the government should send out there immediately either a deputy minister or the chief engineer. I would also suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should send out a responsible representative of his department to check on conditions as they affect agriculture, in order that they may, in co-operation with the minister now on the spot, give to the matter the serious consideration which must be given at once to protect the economy of the Fraser valley and of the whole dominion.
I am about to fly out there, because I believe it is my duty under these conditions to be in my own constituency. If I can be of any assistance, that is where I should be. I believe that is where any member should be when it is a matter of assisting his constituency. I hope that some farm member in the opposition will see that I am protected while I am away. I have enough confidence in hon. members to feel sure that that will be done.
I want to impress upon the government, upon the Minister of Public Works in particular, upon the Minister of Agriculture and upon the Minister of Finance, who is not here, that this is not now a Fraser valley matter; it is a national matter which must be attended to, and at once.
Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fraser Valley has suggested that I immediately send the deputy minister of public works out to British Columbia in order that he may see the flood conditions prevailing there. I want to tell him that the deputy minister has been out there now for two days. Along with the resident engineer, Mr. Morton, he has been looking over the conditions in thaj area.
I am not prepared to discuss flood conditions throughout the country. Every day or so during the last two months an hon. member from Ontario, Quebec or some other province has stood up to question the Minister of Public

Reclamation of Marshlands
Works about flood conditions in his province. The legal authorities of the government inform me that the only jurisdiction the federal government has over waters in the different provinces is that which concerns navigation. We are supposed to look after navigable waters so that navigation will not be impeded by obstacles or works which might be constructed on the river or stream.
I am informed further that these flood conditions would not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I must admit that in the past we have entered into agreements to relieve conditions in certain parts of the country, especially in Ontario during the depression years and periods of unemployment. It has not been the practice, however, to undertake works to protect municipalities from floods, and I am told that that is not our responsibility.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley puts it on a wider plane; he says thalt this is a national situation, a national emergency. I suppose that that could be argued, and I am not going to start an argument with him today. Nobody sympathizes more with these people than my department, because we are in daily contact with those who live along these rivers and streams. Wherever we have works or dikes that are causing any damage we attend to the repairs and maintenance of those works, but we would not like to intervene because the provinces are jealous of their autonomy and resent encroachment upon their jurisdiction.
We are hesitant to do anything which is not within our jurisdiction in a province. I am not saying that it has not been done, but I know that in certain provinces whenever we try to do anything that is within provincial jurisdiction they are always ready to say: Why don't you attend to your own affairs? I want to tell you that in public works we are trying to do just that.
We are receiving requests from all over the country, especially during springtime, to relieve these conditions. I do not know that we have done very much so far. Personally I would be elated if this matter came under federal jurisdiction, because in my own district right across the river there is a town of 2,400 people which is flooded out nearly every spring to such an extent that fifty per cent of them must move out. Before I became a minister of the crown I made representations to the government and asked for relief, but the answer I received was just about the answer I am giving today.


Mr. FULTON:: I fancy you were dissatisfied?


Alphonse Fournier: I will not say that I was satisfied. Then I tried to get help from the proper authorities, but I do not know that I was so successful there either. I knew that the municipality could not cope with the situation. It had no means to do so, and it certainly had no control over the flow of the river, especially in the spring.
I do not want to get into an argument, but I recall that in the green book containing proposals of the federal government to the provinces there was reference to public investment, and I believe there were a few paragraphs concerning works of this nature in connection with which the federal government declared itself prepared to co-operate in order to relieve serious conditions in the provinces. I am not reflecting upon what took place at the conference or what was discussed there, but those proposals have never been withdrawn. They are still in the green book which was presented to the premiers of the provinces.
My officials in every part of the country have been instructed to do their utmost, with the staff and the means we have, to help local populations. I am more than pleased to be able to say that my deputy is out there now. Perhaps he foresaw what was going to take place in British Columbia, because he flew out there on Monday or Tuesday. I think he will be back next Tuesday, and if any further questions are put concerning the situation I will be ready to give all the information I can.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take three or four minutes of the time of the committee to discuss this particular resolution. In the first place, I should like to see a national policy adopted which would apply not only to the maritimes but throughout the whole country. A number of hon. members visited the city of Toronto some time ago and they saw the marshlands in the Ashbridge's Bay area.- The city built two large dredges at considerable cost which pumped about two and a half million cubic yards of sand and water a day which was used to reclaim this area.
I support the principle of the resolution. The hon. member for Davenport has taken a great deal of interest in this matter. The other day he showed some pictures in the railway committee room which indicated what could be done in this country in the way of reclaiming marshland throughout the country. I believe in certain cases the provinces should contribute towards works of this kind.
Since confederation the only works carried on by the federal government have been those concerning navigation. The public works department erect breakwaters, harbour works
Reclamation oj Marshlands

and all that sort of thing on navigable waters or streams. Many of the reclamation works carried out in the three prairie provinces have been good so far, but I do not agree in the policy involved. Somebody must be responsible for the construction of these works. We should have a national plan but it seems difficult to get a plan at the present time for these reclamation works. I do not think an advisory committee should be appointed. The works are to be undertaken by an advisory committee upon terms and conditions agreed upon with the province prior to Majr 1, 1955, and the Minister of Agriculture is to be empowered to appoint the necessary officers and employees to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. There should be a national policy of flood control undertaken in conjunction with the provinces. Some of the dredging plants of the federal government could be used in connection with this work.
Floods are causing widespread damage in every province. We should have a national policy of bonuses, subsidies and subventions on reclamation and flood control. It would not only improve conditions all over Canada and develop our national resources but provide employment. I commend the principle of this resolution. We shall await the bill for details.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I endorse everything that has been said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I saw the Fraser river on Tuesday of this week. It was then four to six feet below the level of the C.P.R. main line, just around Agassiz, a little bit east of where the hon. member comes from. I was told that the previous day it had been below the level of the telegraph poles alongside the railway, and when I was there it was about a foot and a half up the telegraph poles; so you can see the rate at which the river has been rising.
Although my own constituency is not at the moment suffering from major floods, it has rivers which have washed out bridges on highways and railways, but no comparable area to that which has been inundated in the Fraser valley. Although that is true, I support entirely what the hon. member for Fraser Valley said. I agree that it is now a national emergency which must have the consideration and co-operation of the federal government and of all federal departments, although the greatest emergency exists in the hon. member's area and in the area from which the hon. member for Kootenay West comes. I understand he is now out there to see what he can do to help. It is a situation which threatens the whole of the province.

I am intimately acquainted with the rivers of the Fraser river system, the lower end of which flows through the hon. member's riding, but the tributaries of which, many of them, rise in and flow through my own riding. I think we are required to consider two aspects of the matter: first, what we can do to deal with the present condition, which has caused deaths and damage and threatens further damages and possibly further deaths of men and women and of course of all kinds of livestock; second, we must consider how we can prevent such occurrences in the future.
I do not agree with the Minister of Public Works when he says that at the moment there is no way in which the federal government is directly interested in the matter. The Department of Fisheries certainly does not take that view. They go around blowing up dams on our rivers when those who know the situation tell them that if they do so, thereby allowing rapid spring run-offs, they may aggravate the danger of floods. They say they have the power, and they blew out a dam at the end of Adams lake, despite strenuous objections from local people who knew the situation. I am not going to say that that alone actually caused the floods this year, but those who understand these problems tell me that it contributed to them, and that what should be done is to control the run-off where it is most easily controllable-that is, at the source of the trouble, the outlets of our lakes where they become rivers and where you could put a dam which, by raising the level of the water, in the lakes only, from four to six feet, would store a tremendous body of water and also catch the run-off from the mountains. It is at these places that you can control the runoff and prevent such floods as we are now having. That is the proper way to tackle this problem. That is one way which has been urged for some years now.
The federal government has been urged to co-operate with the provincial authorities in making surveys and putting in such installations. In the United States they put in projects covering waterpower, water for irrigation, power for industry and also for irrigation, and projects which will control floods and prevent soil erosion and damage to farms from sudden spring floods. It is that approach we must make to the problem in Canada, and which we have urged on the government for at least two years that I know of in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been doing that for ten years.

Reclamation of Marshlands


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not in British Columbia, and not to any great extent throughout the rest of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: To a very considerable extent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the past two years I have asked the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries, in co-operation with the provincial authorities, to make a survey of the whole Fraser river system to find where projects can best be installed so that we can control the run-off and prevent floods and build up a power system that will also provide irrigation and power for industry. I have been in communication with all these departments, and I had an answer from the Minister of Public Works earlier this year, replying to a letter of mine asking what progress was being made in respect to such a survey. I take it that the minister will have no objection if I read his answer.


Alphonse Fournier: If I wrote it to you, you can make it public all right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it that the minister is a little more cautious than other members of the government, who occasionally find the things they have said embarrassing. The minister in his letter said:
This matter is at present receiving the active attention of the department, and I propose taking it -up with my colleagues in council with a view to obtaining the necessary authority for the formation of a board to carry out the required surveys and to submit a complete report on its recommendations, with an estimate of cost of its proposals.


Alphonse Fournier: If I might intervene, this is an old question, as the hon. member knows. We have had engineers making surveys in the Fraser river valley to try to avoid the conditions described by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, right down to where the river flows into the ocean. Listening to the hon. member for Kamloops, it occurred to me that he seems to know a lot about rivers and streams and dams, and the measures to take to avoid floods. But the reports we have to date are not conclusive. They are to the effect that it is very difficult to deal with conditions in the Fraser river valley. When I wrote that letter we had in mind the constitution of a board consisting of engineers appointed by this government, by the province and by interested municipalities, to make a study and survey and report to the different governments. I can tell the hon. member-without giving the exact date, which I cannot recall-that the government did authorize me to get in touch
with the province and municipalities and help to constitute this board. I believe that one of the outstanding engineers of my department will be a member of the board, which, if I remember rightly, will also have representatives from the departments of fisheries and agriculture. I have not the details, because I was not expecting this debate to come up today, but I know that British Columbia and the municipalities have agreed to appoint representatives. I am not sure whether the surveys have yet been started. The object of this would be to try to devise means to relieve the actual conditions incident to floods in the spring, and also to do what work is necessary at the mouth of the Fraser river, to be carried out by my department each year, in the effort to remove the sandbanks that impede or form an obstacle to navigation. But we take part in these studies only because navigation comes under federal jurisdiction, and we do not shirk our responsibility. As I listen to hon. members in the house speaking of flood conditions, they seem to think that this is a federal problem, and I am simply trying to explain to them the status of the matter. They are not addressing themselves to the right person. I have never said a word against the other bodies which are responsible for the works in connection with these conditions, and I am trying to co-operate. I would ask these hon. members, when the session is over, to get in touch with their friends in their provinces and make to the governments there the same representations that they make to our government, which is the last one to have responsibility in the whole matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, may I interject-


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: I must call the attention of the committee to the fact that what we have before us is a resolution to assist the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in certain respects. The hon. member for Fraser Valley, rightly I believe, brought to the attention of the house an emergency situation which exists at the present time, and I believe he had in mind the question whether anything could be done to help the people concerned in this emergency. However, I would ask hon. members who are discussing that situation in British Columbia to confine their remarks to the emergency, and as soon as they have finished with that we shall go on with the resolution which is before us. I think hon. members should try to confine their
Reclamation of Marshlands

remarks to the situation as described by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point raised by the chairman, perhaps it would help if I were to say this. I was going to suggest that we confine ourselves to the matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the reason being that-at least this is my hope-as soon as this motion passes the resolution stage and we get the bill into the house, we can go on to deal with the estimates; because some of the matters that are being discussed now could properly be taken up under P.F.R.A. or under special votes provided for British Columbia and other parts of Canada. Most of what has been said by the hon. member for Kamloops should really come under those items. It would be better to discuss them then than to take up so much time now, and then have a discussion again on the items I have indicated. Both the matters having to do with the prairies and with the valleys generally in British Columbia can be considered better under the other items.'
I may say that the director of P.F.R.A. is already in British Columbia. He has been there since Tuesday of this week. The director of marketing went up yesterday and will be taking note of all that is happening in that section of the province, and he will then report back to us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the point that you have made, Mr. Chairman, and also the remarks of the minister, and I will conclude briefly along the lines you have suggested.
I would point out that to some extent this emergency is aggravated by the conduct of the Department of Fisheries in blowing up a dam without regard to the representations made by farmers and others familiar with the conditions in the district. I would point out further, while I am not going to go into any further details regarding the general approach to the question, that this matter is so serious that we must immediately take steps to prevent a recurrence of these conditions. In my opinion the Minister of Public Works is and should be interested in these measures, because the rivers to which I refer are navigable, and I have a direct interest in the flood conditions in that province because there will be floods in my own constituency this year. They are starting now. Though they are not yet as serious as they are in the Fraser valley, nevertheless they are developing and we fear they may become very serious. I hope therefore that
[The Deputy Chairman.]
the three ministers, of agriculture, fisheries and public works, will, in conjunction with our own departments in the province, send their officials to our area; and while taking steps to relieve the present emergency they should, I suggest, bear in mind details in connection with a long-range program such as I have spoken of. I have urged such a program for the past two years and I think it should be implemented. Incidentally, I know that the ministers in British Columbia are in general in accord with a project along the lines that I have suggested.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think hon. members will bear me out when I say that I was not offering criticism generall}'. I am talking about the present national emergency, though I may say that I shall have a good deal to say about the minister's department and other departments as well. There are things he should do that he has not done. However, I was speaking of the emergency. What I am trying to do is to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Defence the importance of this question, and the urgency of the situation. The Minister of National Defence has a very large camp in that particular area. There is also situated there the second best airport in the dominion, and I was trying to impress upon the ministers that this is a national emergency which must be considered by the government as such. I entirely disagree with the Minister of Public Works in his interpretation of the facts relating to this condition. I repeat, it is a national emergency and as such it must be considered at once by the government. So far as the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture are concerned, they do not amount to two bits compared to this question.
I know that the Minister of Agriculture wants to get away to some other area-I do not know for what purpose-but at the same time I must urge upon him the importance of dealing with this situation. I am not depreciating the marshlands of the maritimes, but that is something that can wait until tomorrow. There is no need to rush it through while the whole Pacific coast is in danger. I deprecate the idea of rushing estimates through when not only the economy of the dominion but lives are at stake.


Mr. CLAXTON:: I think it might be interesting to hon. members to hear something of the steps that are being taken in this connection by the Department of National Defence, which has been in close touch with the situation. I did not anticipate the discussion that has arisen this afternoon and

Reclamation oj Marshlands
therefore I have not a full report, but since the discussion began I made some inquiries and I can speak briefly on what we are doing.
Rear Admiral Mainguy, commanding the Royal Canadian Navy on the Pacific coast, sent a signal to H.M.C.S. Discovery at Vancouver: "Render any assistance", and also to all ships on the Pacific coast: "All power boats are to be brought on short notice to assist in flood emergency on Fraser river; above boats to be fuelled, watered and provisioned". A navy tug was dispatched to New Westminster. All these boats are furnished with emergency and life-saving equipment. Yesterday the signal service took over the ordinary Canadian National railway service of telegraphs through some of the flood areas, which was interrupted because the poles were down. The air force is dispatching one or more Dakotas from No. 12 group of the northwest air command, carrying sandbags to Cranbrook for use at Kimberley. At Chilliwack we have the engineers' school and training establishment, which is working full-time assisting in flood control. Also at one or two localities reserve units have been put on active service at the request of the local authorities, and instructions have been given to all three services to do everything that can be done, and that is necessary, in co-operation with the provincial and local authorities.
I should add that the Canadian armed forces, as I think hon. members know, are not equipped in the same way as are the United States forces, because in the United States the army engineers do a large part of all public work. That has never been the practice in Canada. Perhaps we should do more of this work in order to gain training experience; but whenever it has been possible to put at the disposal of local authorities such facilities as the armed forces have, we have done that as a work of national service, and also because it is of direct value in connection with training. But here in this case we have a direct and immediate interest because our own establishments are endangered by reason of the flooding. Other steps are being taken. I have given instructions that everything possible be done.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I wish to support all that has been said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for Kamloops. I am also interested in what the Minister of National Defence has just said. It bears out the assertion that what has been happening in British Columbia is a calamity of the first magnitude which should take precedence over the rest of the business of this house.
I listened with great interest to what the Minister of Public Works had to say a little while ago, when he was emphasizing the division of responsibility between the federal department and the provincial department. I should like to say to him that there are times when these disasters are of such magnitude that they sweep away all jurisdictional prejudices that may arise.
I was in telephonic communication this morning with the mayor of my home town of Fernie, which has been isolated by road and rail for all of this past week. Highway bridges have gone out, which of course the provincial government will be prepared to take care of; also a C.P.R. bridge has gone out, which the C.P.R. will be prepared to take care of. But what I am greatly concerned about is what is happening in the town of Kimberley in the riding of Kootenay East. A small creek, called Mark creek, runs through the centre of the town. There has been a flash flood; and the creek has gone completely on the rampage. Many homes have been washed away and destroyed, and several hundred people have been rendered homeless.
I want to say here a word of thanks to the Red Cross for the splendid way in which they moved in at once to render all the help they possibly could, and also to the Minister of National Defence for the way in which the militia department stepped in, shipping in thousands of sandbags and men ready to assist in any possible way. But what I am mainly concerned about is this. Who is going to help the people who have lost their all? They are not worrying about whether it is a federal responsibility or a provincial responsibility. Through no fault of their own and certainly I am not attributing any blame or negligence to the provincial department or the federal department; you might call it an act of God- everything they possess has been swept away. I for one cannot see how we in the nation's parliament can just sit here and say: Oh, it is too bad, but it has nothing to do with us. May I refer for just a moment to the fact that we have been discussing in these last few days a national budget, in which the minister has shown that he has a surplus of about $670 million. Surely it will do no harm to take a few million dollars of that money and use it wisely in the various parts of British Columbia which are suffering so terribly, in order to help to relieve cases of necessity that are most pressing. Of course it would be a matter for consideration on the part of the federal department as well as of the provincial department to see that help is rendered to the most needy cases. I do not think that we here in Ottawa can realize the magnitude of what is
450C
Reclamation oj Marshlands

happening in British Columbia. I have known, as has the Minister of Public Works, for many years the difficulty that is experienced in Gatineau Point from year to year. But they know what happens there almost every year, and they can be prepared for it. Out in British Columbia, however, this is something unusual. It is the greatest flood damage in fifty years, caused by excessively heavy snow-falll in the mountains-a sudden spell of hot weather which brings down all that water-and people suffer. Surely the needs of these people can be aired, and they are entitled to the assurance that aid will be given.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: First of all I want to concur in all that has been said by various members from British Columbia, because I can assure hon. members that in parts of the prairie provinces we have gone through the very same thing this past spring. Not only has there been danger of loss of life; a dozen lives have actually been lost through flooding in the prairie provinces. Many hundreds of people have lost their homes. This has been going on for nearly two months; and now in northern Manitoba, in The Pas area, the same thing is happening as happened in British Columbia; many hundreds of people there have lost their all, their life savings. They have no place in which to live. It is a serious business.
As the previous speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay East, has just said, this has been an abnormal season. In our part of the country we did not have ordinary winter thaws. We had heavy snowfalls, then extremely heavy rains taking the snow away, and the run-offs could not handle the water.
Apart from the serious business of the loss of life that has occurred and the many more lives that are in danger, many who make their livelihood on farms will lose their entire year's operations this year. They will have no income whatever. While we think we have been fortunate in having had the P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. in the prairie provinces, the regulations under those two measures will not take care of many of the people who have lost everything owing to flooding.
I want to pay a compliment to the minister of National Defence. The troops under him helped a great deal, as was so well described by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie a while ago, in connection with flooding from the Assiniboine river. The troops worked night and day, and we cannot thank them too much. They have rendered splendid service wherever they have happened to be stationed in western Canada. This flooding business is certainly a national disaster, affecting as it does thousands 
of people west of the great lakes, right through to the western coast. It is a serious source of trouble.
I know, as the minister has said, that under our governmental set-up these matters are first the duty of the municipality; in turn, when the municipality cannot settle them, they must go to the province; and the province in turn goes to the federal government. But this is truly a national emergency. The people in some parts of Manitoba have probably been more accustomed to this sort of thing, on the Red river and on the Assiniboine, and out on the Souris where I have been, and you have not seen anything about it in the press. Many farmers in my constituency will not seed an acre this year and have not an acre of pasture for their cattle. They are losing their only opportunity to make any revenue for the entire year; therefore we are facing disaster which will require federal assistance. That of course we can discuss at the appropriate time.
To deal for a moment with the resolution which is before the committee, I should like to raise a question before the minister replies. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to present a bill to assist the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the reclamation and development of marshlands in the said provinces by the construction and reconstruction of works necessary therefor and the purchase of . required machinery and equipment. Works may be undertaken only on the recommendation of an advisory committee to be established under the act and upon terms and conditions agreed upon with the province concerned prior to the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-five. The Minister of Agriculture is empowered to appoint necessary temporary officers and employees to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund with provision also for the payment of expenses of members of the advisory committees.
To me that seems exactly the same as the duties and objects set out in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, with which I have had some experience. For the past two years I have had on the order paper the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this house the government should take into consideration the advisability of expanding the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a national soil conservation and farm rehabilitation act and extending its activities to all the settled farm areas of Canada.
The point I want to make is that we have this administration already set up. As I read the resolution the bill will call for exactly the same kind of work and the same kind of advisory committees. It is true that some added personnel would be required, including persons who are conversant with that particular area; but I should like to know why it is necessary

Reclamation oj Marshlands
to bring in a new bill instead of amending the existing act to take advantage of the administration already organized. It seems to me that would be far more efficient.
For some sessions now various members from the maritimes, including the hon. member for Cumberland, the hon. member for Colchester-Hants, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and others, have been pressing the government to do something about the reclamation of these marshlands, and I am sure those hon. members will have much to say on this measure. When the minister speaks, however, I should like him to tell us why it would not be more efficient to deal with this matter by amending the act already on our statute book and making use of the experienced and efficient men who are in charge of that organization, instead of setting up a new administration which will require a complete new staff, new equipment, and so on.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to speak briefly on the resolution, but before doing so, as a member from Nova Scotia, our extreme eastern province, I am sure I am expressing the thought of every maritime member when I extend our sympathy to the people of British Columbia who find themselves in such difficulties today because of floods. We in Halifax have gone through two explosions. We know what an emergency is, and the hardships that follow; therefore we can appreciate the plight of the people of British Columbia in the circumstances in which they now find themselves.
My first words in respect to the resolution, which deals with assistance to the maritime provinces in the reclamation and development of the marshlands, must be to express, on behalf of all maritime members, our appreciation and thanks to the minister. I think perhaps the Minister of Agriculture deserves more credit in this matter than any other single member of the cabinet. He has been very sympathetic to our representations over a period of years. I recall that in 1937 or 1938 I was a member of a committee which waited on the minister in this connection. As I recall it, the hon. member for Westmorland was chairman of the committee, which included Mr. Purdy, former member for Colchester-Hants, and certain senators.
Since that time various committees have been set up, and the suggestion has been given strong support by all members of this house. The hon. member for Cumberland has been very active. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert and other hon. gentlemen on the opposition side, as well as hon. members from all parts of the maritimes sitting on the gov-5849- 286J
ernment side, have given their strong support. On all occasions we have been courteously received by the minister. Later more definite representations were made by the premiers of the three maritime provinces, who recently placed certain proposals before the minister.
I am hopeful that as the outcome of those representations a bill will be introduced, founded upon this resolution, which will provide the necessary assistance to bring about the results for which we have been working for these many years.
While I am on my feet I wish to add the name of another friend of the maritimes. I refer to the splendid representations which have been made, not once but on many occasions, by the hon. member for Davenport. The other evening we listened to the hon. gentleman deal with the development of the maritimes in regard to the production of coal. That was just one more example of his friendly feeling toward the maritime provinces, and I know he will join with those of us who come from that area in supporting this measure and giving credit where credit belongs, in this case to the Minister of Agriculture.
For the benefit of western members, more particularly those coming from the prairies, let me say that while our Nova Scotia farm production is small in comparison to theirs, it has shown a steady increase. In 1938 our farm production amounted to about 817,700,000. By 1945 it had increased to over 826,000,000, and by 1946, the last year for which I have figures, to about $42,000,000. If this development takes place in connection with our marshlands, particularly in Nova Scotia, we believe that production will be greatly increased. In my province of Nova Scotia we have 33,000 farms, representing a population of 150,000 people; so you see we are very much interested in the industry of agriculture. That also applies to dairying. Our production still is not what we would like, but we do produce seven million pounds of creamery butter per year. It is because we need these marshlands for the further development of the production of butter, dairy products and feed for our cattle that we have been asking for so many years that some action be taken.
The dikelands of the maritimes bear a relation to agriculture there similar to the relation the prairie lands bear to agriculture in western Canada. While the acreage of the prairies is vastly greater, the dikelands of the maritimes are equally essential to the basic industry of agriculture.
I said I was going to speak briefly. I believe the majority of hon. members are familiar with our dikeland conditions. They have been written about in fiction and history, and have
Reclamation oj Marshlands

been referred to time and again on the floor of this house. We need reconstruction in a big way in the maritimes. We have, roughly speaking, 80,000 acres which will come under this reclamation scheme, if carried out as requested. It is because of that, and the conditions in which we find ourselves, that we are particularly interested in the bill which will be introduced.
Surveys have been made. I have correspondence covering a long period of years, and while I am not familiar with the details of the bill which the minister will introduce, or with the various points which will be set out in the sections, I know there were three definite proposals placed before the minister in respect of the manner in which this could be carried out. One involves a fairly modest amount, and a second one would run into several millions of dollars.
We are hoping that this will be a permanent undertaking, one which will have a lasting effect upon the development of agriculture in the maritime provinces; not just an emergency measure to tide us over or to satisfy us for the time being.


James Garfield Gardiner: This covers the whole thing.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Thank you; I am pleased to be advised by the Minister of Agriculture that this scheme is broad enough to cover the full program as placed before him by the three premiers in their recent conference on this subject. I take it from the minister's statement that it will be only a matter of years until our total marshlands will once again be properly protected so as to give us an opportunity to cultivate on those lands produce which will be helpful to our province.
I have endeavoured to speak as briefly as possible, so as to permit other maritime members, if they so desire, to join with me in extending thanks to the minister. Once again I thank the government and particularly the Minister of Agriculture for having brought this legislation before the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps if I were to give some details so that hon. members would have some information as to the nature of the legislation, it would help them in anything they might desire to say. I was hopeful that most of the discussion would take place on second reading of the bill. The bill is in print and ready for distribution as soon as this resolution passes. With the bill before us, we would be in a better position to discuss points such as those mentioned by the senior hon. member for Halifax.

At present, however, I should like to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Souris. As he said a few moments ago, for a period of years he and other hon. members have been advocating that we should have legislation similar to that known as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which would be applicable to all Canada.
In so far as it has been given consideration by the government, it was thought that if such action were taken there should be two bills, one covering the problems we have from Manitoba west and the other covering problems from Ontario east. Those problems are different, due largely to the nature of the country and to the difference in climate in the different areas. It was thought, therefore, that there should be two bills.
May I say that, among others, I have become a little bit tired, if I may use that word, of waiting for these larger bills. The suggestion made a few moments ago by the senior hon. member for Halifax is correct in every particular. Since coming to Ottawa and going to the maritimes to see for the first time the marshlands there, and the experimental work which was started there the year before I took over the department, and which has been continued since that time, I have been convinced that one of the most important works to be done in Canada was the rehabilitation of the marshlands.
I recall that from my earliest days in school in Canada I was taught that one of the highest tides in the world was that in the bay of Fundy. I did not realize what that meant until I had an opportunity to go there and to see it. The situation is one which has been dealt with over a long period of time and by different authorities. Although I have not measured it, I was told, while I was very young, that the water rises to a height of forty-two feet.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: To sixty feet.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was stated conservatively in our geographies at forty-two feet, although I would suppose that at some point or another the figure of sixty feet would be correct. In any event, forty-two feet is a very high tide; and a rise of sixty feet, as has been suggested by the senior hon. member for Halifax, is a considerable rise indeed. Hon. members will realize what this means, and that it is different from the matter about which we had been talking this afternoon. This is not something that happens once in every fifty years or in every ten years; it happens twice a day. The water rises under the tide twice a day, and this goes on year in and year out.

Reclamation oj Marshlands
A long time ago, in the first instance when the area was ruled over by the French, the French government thought this important enough to conserve these lands from the sea, the lands on the fiats which are flooded every time the tide comes up. The French put their armed forces and others to work at building dikes alongside these marshlands to prevent the rising of the water from flooding twice a day these very lands.
A hundred years ago the British had gained control of that area. It will be kept in mind that in both instances it was not the federal government which acted; rather it was imperial governments a long distance away from the work, governments across the ocean. But they took sufficient interest in the matter to see that these dikes were built. First it was the French and later the British.
The dikes were built. We like to pride ourselves upon our engineering skill today; but the engineers of that time built those dikes so soundly that they gave very little trouble over a long period of years. The aboiteaux built to control the going-out and coming-in of the water, with the assistance of some maintenance on the part of either local bodies or the provinces, since the confederation of the provinces, have remained intact, and have given good service. For some reason which I shall not discuss at the moment, agriculture was not paying as well in the maritime provinces in more recent years as it had been in the earlier period, and there was not the same care taken of these high producing pasture lands, nor was the same care taken of the dikes themselves. The result was that some of these dikes became damaged and the seawater began again to come in over these flats which are capable of producing great amounts of fodder.
As an indication of just how much they can produce, let me point out that we took over a small acreage of it alongside our experimental farm, and have been operating it since the first year I was in the government. The area was taken over in the year previous, although the experimental work had not been begun when I took office. I went to the maritime provinces, looked at the area, and the surrounding area, and decided that the work should proceed. I have been back there since to see the plot of land taken over. On one side of the road we find a condition today where a certain amount of fodder such as alfalfa or other hay is produced, while right across the road on the plot which has been properly handled under experimental conditions we find three times as much being produced from each acre.
This gives some indication of the possibilities in the area by way of increasing production through the proper handling of these lands. Long arguments have gone on as to whose responsibility it would be to make the necessary improvements. I have been convinced from the beginning that it did not make any difference whose responsibility it was, that no government short of the national government could do any considerable part of the work that had to be done. If it were to be done at all it had to be done on the same basis as the French did it in the first place and as the British did later on; it had to be directed and partly financed by some central authority and put into shape where the local people could handle it.
In the past the dikes were there, and the practice that was followed w7as to have provincial legislation under which the land behind the dikes could be managed and under which certain levies could be made in order to cover the cost of maintenance. This is administered in very much the same way as what has been done in connection with drainage in provinces across Canada.
The bill to be founded on the resolution provides for the federal government building or rebuilding or reconstructing the dikes. We think it is better that there be a division of authority rather than there be a division of funds; that there be a division of responsibility rather than that there be a division of funds. We will go ahead and do a certain job and then the province will do a certain job. Then those who will have benefits from the land will do something further, to be provided for under provincial legislation.
The job we have taken upon ourselves to do is that of reconstructing the dikes to keep out the sea. When we have completed that job we hope that there will be no possibility- if there is a possibility we may have to do something further with regard to it-of the sea getting in to damage these lands. Then the province undertakes under the legislation to do certain works behind the dikes. There may have to be some negotiation when we get down to the final determination of what is to be done by one or the other, as to just where the one stops and the other starts, but what each is responsible for is pretty clearly written into the legislation and we can discuss the details when the bill is before the house.
So far as the federal government is concerned, the total expenditures in connection with the 80,000 acres referred to a few moments ago by the senior hon. member for
Reclamation of Marshlands

Halifax will be S3,210,000. This is made up as follows:
30 miles new dikes at $10,000 a mile $ 300,000 70 miles heavy reinforcing dikes at
$6,000' a mile	 420,000
200 miles medium and light reinforcing dikes at $2,500 a mile		500,000
10 very large aboiteaux at $30,000
each	 300,000
20 large aboiteaux at $30,000 each . .	600,000
35 medium size aboiteaux at $6,000
each	 210,000
200 small aboiteaux	at	$1,000 each ..	200,000200 breakwaters at	$700	each	
140,00080,000 acres, surveys and plans at 50 cents per acre	
40,000Total	
$3,210,000
Those are the expenditures under division No. 1. Then division No. 2 covers the expenditures to be made by the provinces. The estimated cost to construct, straighten, dig or clean laterals, sub-laterals and dale ditches in 80,000 acres of dikelands and marshlands and to clean larger drainage ditches or canals is $4,230,000, made up as follows:
50 miles large canals at $10,000 a
mile	 $ 500,000
130 miles large creeks at $5,000 a
mile	 650,000
120 miles of laterals at $4,000 a mile	480,000
GOO miles of sub-laterals at $2,000 a
mile	 1,200,000
7,000 miles of dale ditches at $200 a mile	 1,400,000
Total	 $4,230,000
Expenditures under division No. 3 are to be undertaken by the dikeland owners. The
80,000	acres are to be replowed, limed, fertilized and reseeded at $18 per acre, or a total of $1,440,000. Those are the estimated figures at the moment. The works referred to a few moments ago by the senior hon. member for Halifax as being temporary were started in 1944-45 and consisted simply of patching up holes in the dikes and that kind of thing. There was nothing permanent about it. The federal government have spent on such activities in 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 a total of $207,601.33. These works will be continued during this year. The activities under the bill which I intend to bring before the house will start with the next season.
It is estimated that it will take anywhere from five to ten years to do the work, depending upon how much we are able to accomplish each year. In their proposals the provinces suggest that it should take nine or ten years, but we are hopeful that the work for which we are responsible can be done in a much shorter period. We think the most important thing to do now is to

keep the water out. When we have spent the amount which is required to cover the federal government's responsibility in connection with the dikes, it will then be possible for other work to be carried on by the provinces behind the dikes. If the province desires to take a longer period of time or if those interested in the land desire to take a longer period, it will be most helpful to them if our work is carried out in a shorter space of time.
In answering the hon. member for Souris who asked whether this bill would be similar to the P.F.R.A., I would say that it will not be similar. This bill covers just the one thing. So far as we are concerned, it covers the building of the dikes. That will be done by the federal government and the staff required will be an engineering staff.
I presume the advisory committee will be much the same committee as we have had for a number of years. The chairman of that committee is the superintendent of the experimental farm in Nova Scotia and he has a number of others associated with him. These men have studied the question fully and have made reports from time to time. I presume it will be that committee, or some variation of it, that will function in connection with the whole activity.
I should like to get the bill before the house as soon as possible. I may say to those who are concerned about my getting away that I am not going away for a week. Nobody needs to be in any hurry about my going away. I shall go away when the time comes whether the legislation is through or not. There is nothing involved in my going or staying in so far as the legislation or my estimates are concerned. It is simply a question of getting along as rapidly as we can with the ordinary business of the house. Even if my estimates and this bill are through, I shall probably be here until about a week from today or a week from yesterday, so that we can go on discussing these matters to the satisfaction of all wrho are here.
However I think we could accomplish more and get greater satisfaction out of the discussion if hon. members would put me in a position as soon as possible to get the bill into their hands and that can be done right after this resolution is passed.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: We need you but can get along without you.


Mr. HAZEN:: A good many of acres of land that will be improved when this proposed legislation becomes law and is put into effect are located in the constituency that is repre-

Reclamation oj Marshlands
sented in this house by the hon. member for Cumberland. On a number of occasions during the past number of years he has brought to the attention of the members of the house the deplorable condition of these marshlands, and has asked the government that some action be taken. I am not in a position to say and I do not say that it was wholly through his energetic efforts that this resolution has been brought down and that the legislation is to be introduced, but I think he is entitled to some credit for what he has done for his constituents in this matter, and I think also there are other members-
Mr. IS'NOR: I gave him credit.


Douglas King Hazen: I admit that, and there are other members from the maritime provinces who are entitled to credit for what they have done in this matter.
There is in the county of Albert, which I have the honour to represent in this house, a considerable acreage of these marshlands that front on the bay of Fundy. Some improvements have been made through arrangements between the dominion and provincial governments and the landowners in the past few years to restore the dikes and reclaim these lands, and probably the experience that has been gained in these operations has been or will be of service in the drafting of the bill that will be brought down.
I do not want to discuss this resolution now at any length. As the minister has suggested, I think it would be much better to do that when the legislation is before us. But I would point out this fact, that this legislation is of a most unusual character. As a rule, the dominion does not assist people whose property has been destroyed by floods. That matter has been discussed today in connection with the floods in British Columbia. The government does not assist owners of property whose lands have been destroyed by floods or by forest fires, nor does it assist people who permit their properties to fall into such a state of disrepair as to be no longer useful or productive. But in this case public funds are to be used to assist a number, and a considerable number, of land owners to improve their own properties.
These dikes in years past were raised by the hands of farmers, with labour incessant, to shut out the turbulent tides. They did that work with their own labour, with the French government possibly assisting at one time. The work was done first of all by the French settlers and later by English settlers, and the dikes were maintained and kept up by these settlers. With the ceaseless rise and fall of the tide there must be a great wear and tear on these earthworks to keep out the seas. For
many years past they were maintained by the owners of the land, and the work was done at their own expense. But now for some reason or another, possibly a combination of reasons or circumstances-the minister referred to the fact that agriculture had been depressed in that area-the government is to do this work. For some years past the owners of the land failed to keep up these dikes; they failed to look after their own property, and as a result the dikes went down, the seas came in and the land was destroyed or made unproductive.
Now if public moneys, the moneys of the people of this country, are to be voted and spent on erecting these dikes and putting these lands into shape for their owners, I think it is essential that arrangements be made to see that the owners of the land keep up the dikes after they have been built. It is essential in this legislation or in the agreements that are referred to in the resolution to provide that the owners of the land maintain the dikes after they have been built. If that is not done the money of the people of this country that will be spent on the' enterprise will be wasted.


Mr. BAKER:: Coming from Nova Scotia, I just want to say that I am delighted, as I am sure the other members from the maritimes are, that the government has found it expedient to reclaim the marshlands in the three maritime provinces. I shall not go into details because I want to see the bill first, but I want to express the satisfaction it gives us all to have the minister make this pronouncement. We need all the arable land we can have in the maritimes. I can assure the committee that this is not a partisan matter at all. It is something that all of us from the maritimes have asked for in one way or another, some vocally on the floor of the house, some of us more quietly perhaps, by correspondence and by direct representations. That goes for all parties in the maritime provinces. I appreciate very much the general support and interest shown by the rest of the committee in this matter.


Thomas John Bentley: I think it is proper that someone from the prairies should say something on this resolution. I suppose someone may accuse me of supporting this measure simply because it affects the province of my birth. I am glad to do so on that account, of course, but that is not the main reason. We in the west have felt for many years that it was necessary to have some assistance to carry us over places where water was scarce, because we believe that the production of foodstuffs is an extremely important thing both for our nation and for the world at large. We have
Reclamation of Marshlands

been given some measure of relief for some years by P.F.R.A., which has done excellent work in the Palliser triangle, and we hope, of course, that much more will be done. It does not make much difference whether the land is submerged under water or has not enough water, for in neither case does it produce the foodstuffs it could. I 'believe that the people of the west generally will welcome the extension of this assistance, although it is not called P.F.R.A., and obviously it could not be, to the maritime provinces, because the result will be to bring more land under cultivation.
I remember some of that section of the country pretty well. One member has said that the people who owned these lands have permitted the dikes to get into a condition of disrepair. I do not believe we should go back into history to place the blame on any particular person, because you cannot alter the facts anyway after you have found out who was responsible. The fact remains that there were times when it was utterly impossible for the owners of the land and the province itself to do the maintenance and reconstruction work that was necessary, and which will be necessary, as the minister says, to bring this land back into cultivation. Whatever errors were made in the past, the thing now is to see that the necessary corrections are made, and I agree with the minister and others who have spoken that this government should take the lead. When that is done, undoubtedly there will be quite a number of people occupying these lands who will be new settlers, probably young farmers, and they will no doubt get encouragement to go ahead and do their part in building and maintenance to make this possible. This will all add to the productive power of Canada and will be of great help to the maritime provinces in rebuilding their industries there, which they regard as their right. It is a pity that more of the same thing could not be done in connection with other industries in order to make them as productive as we all know they can be.
The early part of the debate this afternoon was taken up with a discussion of conditions in the Fraser valley. In a way, I felt let down to think that while the lives of people, and a tremendous amount of personal and public property, were in danger, there should be any discussion whatever over questions of jurisdiction on the part of governmental bodies. When there is such a crisis it should be dealt with as rapidly as possible by whoever has the means to deal with it, and then the responsibility could be assessed afterwards if necessary.

After all, if someone pushes a baby into the river, the first thing that anyone who is able to rescue it will do is to get the baby out, and then find the person responsible and take whatever action may be necessary to prevent his doing the same thing again.
I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley has brought up a question which is of importance not only to that part of the country but to all of us; and the government here, being the strongest in Canada, should take immediate, active and efficient steps to do whatever should be done.
I appreciate what the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Defence have said they are doing. One minister has had his deputy out there for the last two days and no doubt he has been assisting in the work. The Minister of Agriculture has officials in the locality, and if one of them is the person I have in mind he will give a tremendous amount of impetus to the work there. But he cannot do anything without the necessary machinery and manpower. The Minister of National Defence has his engineers on the job. But that is not enough. This afternoon the newspapers indicate that something more rapid should take place.


James Garfield Gardiner: The army and the navy are there too.


Thomas John Bentley: Some of the army and some of the navy, and it may be necessary to have them all there. When there is a battle on, it is important to have everyone fighting.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think everyone is there who should be there. Everyone is there without direction from the federal or the provincial authority. Everyone out there near enough to be helping is helping.


Thomas John Bentley: Are there more on the way?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question to be considered is not what can be done now, because, as I said, everyone is doing everything that can be done at the moment. The question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East is the important one, as to what is to be done with regard to those who have lost property; but that is a thing that does not have to be decided today. As to the other things that can be done, I repeat, everyone is doing whatever he can.


Thomas John Bentley: I am glad to hear that, and I am sure the hon. member for Fraser Valley will be glad to hear it also, because

Reclamation oj Marshlands
I thought he rather felt that everything was not being done that could be done, and I thought he should have the support of the committee if he was correct in his assumption that everything was not being done that could be done. If, however, the minister is right and everything is being done that can be done, that will be a source of satisfaction both to the hon. member for Fraser Valley and to other members from British Columbia.
I will not take up more time on this resolution except to say that we sympathize with the people of the maritime provinces and we hope that those who put this measure into effect will be able to do so as expeditiously as possible. We hope they will meet with the success which has attended some of the work of a similar kind done in our part of the country.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I endorse what the hon. member for St. John-Albert said in giving credit to the minister. In this House of Commons we too seldom, in opposite parties, give credit to those on the other side who do try to do something, and as far as I know the present minister is the first federal minister who has really put his teeth into this problem.
I compliment the minister, as did the hon. member for St. John-Albert. I also appreciate what was said by other members representing Halifax, Cumberland, where the works are going on near the experimental farm, to which the minister referred, Royal, Queens and other parts of the maritime provinces. We can include all hon. members from the maritimes.
Since I have been here, on one occasion or another I have spoken of the marshlands of the maritimes. Last October I spent some time in Albert county and also in the area in Nova Scotia about which the minister spoke. I must pay tribute to the early French pioneers. They did a marvellous job without machinery. They must have done it all with wheelbarrow, shovel, pick and so forth.
In the county of Albert last summer I saw one of the aboiteaux in action. In English, this means a valve in a trough or box, through which the water flows. It hangs on a hinge; when the water is draining off the land, this flap or valve moves seaward, and when the tide is coming in, the flap is pushed shut so that it keeps the sea out. The engineer on the job told me that these aboiteaux were built 200 years ago by the early French pioneers. That is a great tribute to those people.
I support this resolution and I will support the bill as well, for in my judgment it is long overdue. Anyone who heard the figures given by the minister will realize that the completion
of the job would be too much for either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick by itself. The province of Prince Edward Island would like to have dikes too, but I have not heard so much about that. I believe the whole house will support the bill.
One thing that struck me favourably about this debate was the sympathy of everyone for any province that is in distress. The feeling of members generally toward any part of Canada that is in distress is something admirable, and it brings home to us the fact that all Canada is our business and not merely the little bailiwick that each of us represents for a short time. The country at large is our concern, and every member has been in sympathy with this proposal. Some members have referred to their individual troubles, and they are very real no doubt, and should be attended to as quickly as possible, but all those members supported the resolution.
I have heard the amount of acreage stated at between 80.000 and 100,000 acres. Even
80,000	acres are well worth reclamation. It would mean a great deal to the productivity of maritime farms. The farmers roundabout apparently grow hay on the marshlands, but for some years they have not been able to do so. Years ago these activities yielded great returns, but of recent years the farmers have not been able to do much in this way.
Last summer I spent some time at a delightful little town called Hillsborough where the gypsum plant is located. They were rebuilding the dikes there. As one drives south, I presume, from Hillsborough toward the gypsum plant, the roadway lies through lowlands.
The day I was there the water was over that roadway. The tide was in. After the tide went out, I myself went along the roadway across there at the other side of the depression. The land between the roadway and the bay was under water. But when the works now being constructed are completed that land will be reclaimed.
One of the engineers gave me a copy of the bill, or maybe I got it later in Fredericton; I have forgotten which it was. I presume it was a bill passed by the New Brunswick legislature last year or the year before. It stated that the gypsum company, the railway whose line was flooded when the tide was in, and the owners through an agreement were providing for a dike or the repair of that dike. So I hope that, when this bill goes through, the people in Albert county who certainly had great expense-and that includes the railway, the gypsum company and the owners of the land-will be considered for the return of
4514
Reclamation oj Marshlands

what, they spent. They may not be through yet. More money may have to be expended there.
If the minister goes there, he will find the town of Hillsborough a very nice town. It has a fine hotel, which serves the best meal I believe I ever tasted. If I go back there, I am going to head straight for that hotel. I have forgotten its name, but it is on the left side of the street going south. It is well operated and serves fine meals.
In closing my remarks, may I say that I just rose because I know the areas about which the minister spoke. Having seen the tide across the road and across the low lands, I heartily support the reclamation of these lands.


Mr. QUELCH:: I should like to say that we in this group are glad to give our support to this measure. I remember that, when the reconstruction committee of this house was sitting, we made a review of history of the conditions in this area, the history of the building of the dikes, how they had been allowed to deteriorate and how the marshlands have been developed. At that time we came to the conclusion that the problem was one which was altogether too great for the province to handle. Therefore we made a recommendation that reclamation of the marshlands be carried out as a national project. At that time we felt that it would help to increase the wealth of the dominion and could well be regarded as a self-liquidating project.
It was quite evident from the history that was given to us that deterioration of the area of the marshlands had come about largely during the depression times. It was explained to us that, owing to the depressed condition of agriculture, the farmers had not been able to afford the cost of maintaining the dikes, the cleaning of the ditches and so on. It is just another example of the heavy cost we pay in times of depression, and for some time in what we might call a deflationary period. We perhaps do not realize at the time the high cost we pay. It is only at a later time that we realize that the cost of a deflationary period may be much greater than the cost of inflation that we are constantly having brought before us.
I would also say we are glad to see that steps are being taken to give immediate help in the Fraser valley. Then, of course, the next question is this. What is to happen afterwards in regard to the people who have lost a great deal of their property, whose stock maybe has been destroyed, and who will have to be given assistance? One hon. member mentioned that it is a new idea that the

federal government should accept responsibility for damage from floods. I do not think it is a new idea at all, because back in 1937, when we had the terrible droughts in the west, the federal government in part accepted that situation as a national responsibility. The federal government gave the prairie provinces a great deal of help in regard to drought conditions, and in bringing in feed. While flood may be the opposite of drought, nevertheless it is a condition that may absolutely bankrupt the farmers. Just as we accepted as a national responsibility the need for help in relation to drought, so I think we should accept the need for help in regard to damage from floods. We shall also have to accept that as a national responsibility and, when the damage can be reviewed, provide measures by which assistance can be given to these unfortunate people.


Joseph Henry Harris: Before the resolution carries, I should like to make one or two observations. First, I will say that I am in favour of this resolution for the reason that those who are affected by it are close to the communities which, in days to come, might consume the products which might be produced on these marshlands. In the second place, those who live in the proximity of these marshlands are the people who are the very basis, to my mind, and the very life of those features of our Canadian way of life which we like to think of as being of a pioneer character.
Thousands of people from the maritimes have gone west and have developed that part of the country. They left these lands because they were marshlands. Even though they left the midst of these communities-and I am sorry the senior hon. member for Halifax has left his seat; I have something to say to him and I hope he will come back-even though they left the community whence comes the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I still have a mid-Victorian idea in my system that those who left the marshlands and went west are people of a kind that did wonderfully well on behalf of Canada. As I say, I may perhaps be mid-Victorian, but I should like to hold that pioneer stock within the confines of the maritime provinces in order that we might have some well-spring, as it were, or some source from which to draw the greatest of our Canadians to help to make up for the loss of those who found it necessary, through reasons of one kind and another

for instance, that they might get a better financial return-to leave the maritime provinces and go west.
But not nearly as important or as tragic is it that some left the maritimes to go west as it is that others left to go to the New England states to develop another country which does

Reclamation of Marshlands

not fly the same flag as we do. I should like to hold them in the maritimes. I say to my hon. friends in the maritime provinces that within the last quarter of a century, right at the mouth of these very marshlands, I have seen three old pioneering families which I visited, during the last two or three decades stay home in the maritimes. I ask the hon. member for Saint John-Albert-and he knows of whom I am thinking-if one, two or three of those individuals did not accumulate within the last two decades a million dollars in the end of these marshlands, by staying home and attending to their knitting within the province of New Brunswick?
One Sunday morning I hired a car and went out to Moncton to see one of these men at the end of the bore, the bore being one of those channels cut by the tide. This gentleman was on his verandah, and he said, "You, coming from the city of Toronto the good, will, I suppose, not talk business on a Sunday." I reminded him that I had already been to church and had driven out in the same car to see him. Finally, in a cold sort of way he said, "Well, come in off the verandah," and I had the pleasure of taking lunch with him at his home and then selling him forty or fifty cars of goods. After that, he thought those of us from the central provinces were perhaps not too hard to deal with. He finally consummated the sale, even though it was Sunday, and while he still thought Toronto was the good, he felt perhaps it was not quite so good after all.
My hon. friend about whom I have been asking has not yet entered the chamber. We are all members of a confederation. Over a period of two or three decades, the maritime provinces may have been overlooked. Coming from one of the central provinces, I say to my hon. friends in the maritimes: We love, admire and respect you, and hope you may be able to develop your economy so that you will be on a par with the other provinces of the dominion. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of this legislation. I think we should help them in any way we possibly can. Why? For the simple reason that we owe a debt to the maritime provinces of Canada, and I think we ought to pay it. This legislation, little though it may do, will perhaps help. I am sure the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will do anything they can. If hon. members coming from the western provinces find themselves asked to vote some assistance to the maritimes, many of whose people travelled west and helped develop that part of the country, I am sure they, too, will favour any possible help that can be given 5849-287J
so that we may develop the maritime provinces as a strong entity, which will cling to us.
If we do not do that, who will rise in his place in this house and blame or criticize those in the maritime provinces if, after mature consideration and the experience of half a century, they decide that perhaps at the time of confederation they were not too wise in their decision to remain with us? That is what worries me when I think of the years that lie ahead. Within the confines of those three provinces is a great opportunity for the development of natural resources, including those they can dig out of the top six inches of soil and what they can garner from the seas surrounding them. But in addition there are the intellectual resources, those qualities of body and soul which those progenitors have passed on to their sons and daughters, which we need if we are to make of Canada a country of which we may be really proud.
I do not know whether I have made clear the idea in the back of my mind. Perhaps in days gone by we have not been too fair with that far-flung part of our dominion. If that is the case here is an opportunity to do at least something to help the maritimes; and I think it is a great chance.
I should like to put on record something which may stimulate the ideas of one hon. member who seems to think he is the sole representative in this house, and on every committee which functions here, capable of expressing the ideas which permeate the people of that part of the country. The hon. member for Halifax, whom I have had paged half a dozen times in the last ten minutes, has not as yet arrived in the chamber. I am referring to the hon. gentleman who until recently was the junior member for Halifax, who likes to think he represents everything worthwhile in the maritimes. I say to him that if he would try to strike a sympathetic and cooperative chord in the minds of hon. members coming from Ontario and Quebec he would be doing greater service to his constituents and to the maritime provinces in general. He should approach us with the feeling that we are with him to a man, because we know what the maritime provinces have done for Canada, instead of in an attitude which to my mind might be considered cynical, for lack of a better word. If he would cease telling us that rve moved the head offices of his banks from the maritimes up to Montreal or Toronto or some other place he might get along better. We did not do that.
We love, admire and respect the Macdonalds, the Mackintoshes and all those people down there, the sons and daughters of those
Reclamation of Marshlands

who came over on the steamer Hector, the sons and daughters of the highlanders who fought on the plains of Abraham in years gone by, most of whom came from the maritime provinces. We in central Canada have not forgotten the great contribution the maritime provinces made to this country, and the idea we have is to nurture and help them now.
Therefore, coming from Ontario, I support this legislation. I say to the senior hon. member for Halifax, who mentioned the French Canadians, the Aeadians and what not: Voulez-vous, s'il vous plait, entrer dans la saile de la chambre des communes et poser votre derriere sur une chaise, and say something worthwhile on behalf of the maritime provinces. You will get the support not only of those who come from Toronto, the city of the good, but of all those representing Ontario as well as my colleagues in the province of Quebec and those from the west. I say to all my colleagues:	Support the maritime
provinces. Hold the maritime provinces. A few miserable dollars do not matter. Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to support the legislation now brought down by the Minister of Agriculture in this connection.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I wish to say only a brief word in support of the resolution and to say also that I am sure we appreciate the sentiments of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The ancestors of several of my colleagues in this group were from the maritime provinces, and I find them to be industrious and worthy members of the House of Commons.
As one who comes from that part of Manitoba which has suffered from flood conditions, may I say I sympathize with the conditions described by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I hope the government will continue to do everything possible to look ..after that immediate situation.
I am inclined to agree with the statement -of the hon. member for Souris that it might be necessary and desirable to extend the Prairies Farm Rehabilitation Act so that it would apply to all parts of Canada. That would be a step toward solving the recurring arguments and disputes about jurisdiction, because we would then have one piece of legislation applicable to all parts of Canada, and the matter of jurisdiction would no longer come up.
Recently in Manitoba we suffered severe damage from flooding. In at least two instances the dominion government has a definite share of the responsibility. However I shall not discuss the matter now. There will be an opportunity on another occasion. But if the

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act were revised so as to make it applicable to all parts of Canada I believe we would save ourselves a great deal of time in disputing just where the federal government should take over.
I would leave one further thought in connection with the reclamation of land. Now that immigration is again on the increase, it is particularly important that we look toward possibilities of reclaiming land, whether it be in the east, the west or any other part of Canada, where it is possible. Although this is a large country in area, unfortunately much of the land is not arable. There is a certain amount of submarginal and marginal land which, with the application of certain public works and reclamation projects could be brought under cultivation.
If the Minister of Agriculture is to make good his dream of 15,000,000 people in the prairie provinces, and if he is to find room for a portion of them on the land, I believe it will be necessary to carry out projects in other parts of Canada where land may be reclaimed and put into useful production.
As a member from one of the prairie provinces, I am happy to support the resolution, remembering well that in the years of drought and of other misfortunes the people from other parts of Canada came willingly to our assistance.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: May I add my word of appreciation to the minister for having introduced this legislation. I believe it is fitting to put all Canadians behind the maritimers. This is a move in the right direction. As the hon. member for Davenport has said so well on many occasions, Canada as a whole must stand as a whole; all parts of Canada must be behind those in need, and each part must be interested in every other part, so that this magnificent heritage can be kept at its highest possible degree of value and passed on in that condition to the generations to come.
As the hon. member for Dauphin has just said, the reclamation of our soil is extremely important. I am not sure that up to now we have fully realized how precious and sacred our soil is. Anything that tends to destroy it in any part of Canada is a threat to Canada's strength, and must be resisted and overcome.
This brings me to the conditions in the Fraser valley already mentioned. I feel keenly sympathetic toward the people of the Fraser valley because of their great misfortune. It was only a short time ago that my area was in danger of flooding. I would urge upon the government that they take the dollar sign right out of this question of the Fraser valley flooding. In my view the Fraser valley must

Reclamation of Marshlands
be rescued, salvaged and rehabilitated at the earliest possible day, because it is an important part of Canada. The federal government must lead, in collaboration with British Columbia, to put all Canadians behind British Columbia in its time of distress.
If the minister has not already heard, I am sure he will be pleased to know that the St. Mary's river dam, in which he has been so deeply interested, and for the forwarding and building of which he has done so much, has now passed one great crisis. That grand tunnel which had to be constructed in order to divert the water to permit the building of the dam was completed on Saturday, May 22, according to the Lethbridge Herald. That means great rejoicing in my constituency and through southern Alberta. I personally rejoice and I wish to give the minister full credit for his share in this accomplishment.
This helps me to understand how glad members of the maritime provinces must be because of the measure now to be introduced. I wish to assure people from the maritimes that we Albertans and westerners are just as glad as they are.


Mr. PEARKES:: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members I am pleased to see the bill is being introduced to reclaim land from the ravages of the sea. I regret exceedingly, however, its limited aspects. It deals with the lands in three provinces, and three only. It is about time Canada realized that there are more than three provinces which may be claimed as being maritime provinces.
British Columbia is a maritime province. Manitoba borders on salt water. So does Ontario; and there will be opportunities in the future, if indeed they do not already exist, when land will have to be protected in all those provinces from the inroads of the sea.
It might not be desirable to include protection of prairie lands in the same bill as protection of marshlands against the sea; but I can tell the minister, who has recently returned from a trip to the Pacific coast, upon which occasion he made certain promises in various parts of British Columbia, that in my constituency there are lands which are spoiled by the inroads of the sea-not through any unusual circumstances, such as the very sad circumstances now being experienced in the Fraser valley, but from the day to day rising of the tide.
There was a few years ago a seawall or dike, if you wish so to describe it, protecting a certain valuable acreage just on the outside of Victoria. It was built not by the early pioneers. not by a benevolent imperial or benevolent French government, but by this government. And when one asks that that dike be continued or be completed for the few remaining feet yet required-and I refer to the locality known as Island-view Beach-we are told there is no money available for the reclamation or for the building of works to prevent the inroads of the sea.
I feel that this measure definitely falls short of much that might be required, in that it limits the ability to spend money for this particular type of work only to the Atlantic seaboard.
As is well known in the house, there has been a tremendous influx of people to the southern part of British Columbia. They need food and any food that can be raised is adjacent to a market. Difficulties have been enhanced recently by the increased freight rates on commodities such as potatoes and other vegetables which must be shipped in. I should like to see the provisions of this legislation extended so that dikes required for the protection of lands on the Pacific coast may also be built. If they cannot be constructed under the bill to be brought in, then I hope the Department of Public Works will complete the dikes which it started, thereby making acreage available for the growing of potatoes and vegetables urgently needed on the coast of British Columbia.


Mr. ASHBY:: Mr. Chairman, I received a letter from home some time ago telling of the tremendous amount of soil that was being carried down the creeks and rivers of Alberta, apparently going into Hudson bay to be deposited so that perhaps some future generations may reclaim it. When this resolution was brought forward here I thought what a shame it was to permit our soils in the western provinces to be lost by erosion, wind and so on and then have to try to reclaim them somewhere else.
Dikes were built in Nova Scotia when the first settlers arrived from France and they are still holding back the sea, while those that have been built since have broken down. Orchards have been flooded, fields ruined and at odd times people have actually been forced to abandon their farms. I know I have harped on this subject many times, but here is a solution of the problem which was offered by a man in 1821. He said:
It appears impossible that the land owners should much longer submit to these intolerable burdens on their estates. They must get ofi these taxes or lose their estates, they must do a great deal more than that indeed, but that they must do at any rate.
I doubt if any finer soil can be found than is the fine silt deposited in these salt marshes.
451S
Supply-Agriculture

If this land is reclaimed it will last for hundreds and hundreds of years without any fertilizers. Speaking of fertilizers, by the way, I never use commercial fertilizers on my farm. The use of commercial fertilizers constitutes one of the greatest hazards that agriculture has to face today. Natural fertilizers preserve the soil. You may not get as good crops if you turn the straw back into the land, but-


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member to be kind enough to deal with the resolution which is to assist Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the reclamation and development of marshlands.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I realize that there has been a lot of talk this afternoon outside the resolution. I simply wanted to point out the value of this soil where no commercial fertilizer will be required for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is well worth reclaiming and I am not objecting to the legislation for one moment.
We should use the experience that is already available in the individuals who have inhabited and made use of this area. They are not individuals who have been trained in our schools, colleges or universities, but they know how to build dikes. As I said before, hundreds of years ago dikes were built by individuals who had never received training in any institution and those dikes are still in existence, whereas those built in modern times have broken down.
The solution is to remove taxes from these people who do not create money but who actually create valuable assets. That should be done as a reward for rendering this service. However, they are being penalized the very money they require to maintain these dikes md reclaim the additional land. Remove that lindrance from them and there will be no need of the government going near the people to construct dikes of any kind.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 328, respecting the reclamation and development of marshlands in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms service
[Stage Direction]
15. Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $3,372,320.
Mr. HLYNKA:: The other day I inquired whether the Department of Agriculture made

any grants to farmers who were operating illustration stations at their own expense, and the minister replied that the department pays a small rental to farmers who own and operate illustration stations of from fifteen acres up. I should like a little more information on that, since there are several farmers in my constituency who operate illustration stations. They have been able to build them up but now find it difficult to maintain them and to obtain sufficient help who would explain the results to visitors.
There is one farmer in particular in my constituency, William Zazula, of Willingdon, who has one of the finest orchards I have seen. He wrote the department asking if anything could be done to help him in the matter of expenses, in order that he could pay the hired help required to look after visitors. Thousands of people from all over Canada and the United States visit this particular farm. It is only six acres in extent, but in addition he has several acres of flowers of various kinds. Could something be done to help him? Could the Department of Agriculture, for instance, not make a grant after they have assessed the value of the station to the community, and this is more than a community affair? I think the department should encourage such illustration stations in western Canada.
I have on my file a letter written by the deputy minister of agriculture to the gentleman of whom I spoke, and in that letter the deputy minister says that, so far as the western provinces are concerned, the department had no appropriation for such assistance. Why limit such assistance to any part of Canada? I think such assistance should be given equally in all parts, particularly in the west, where the pioneers in this field are rendering a great service to this country in experimenting with various types of fruits and vegetables, grasses and so forth. I would ask the minister to consult with his officials to see whether any assistance can be given in this case. I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate how one should proceed in order to get such assistance.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do, of course, negotiate with each individual who is going to establish an illustration station and enter into an arrangement with him as to what the payment is to be. Payments are usually made on the basis of so much per acre, by rental, and the operator gets the produce of the land and sells it for his own benefit. It is an arrangement entered into with the individual who operates the station. Of course we endeavour to have

Bell Telephone Company
a uniform basis, taking into consideration the different conditions, the number of acres, and so on.


Anthony Hlynka: Whom would this farmer have to get in touch with? Would he have to apply to the branch of the department in Edmonton or write to Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: If he wrote to Ottawa we would put him in touch with the proper party. There is a supervisor of illustration stations at Lacombe, who draws a salary, I notice, of 82,580, whose job it is to supervise the stations in that area. There is an organization right across the country, but the nearest supervisor to the farmer my hon. friend mentioned would be the one at Lacombe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill No. 8 (letter C of the Senate), intituled: "An act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada."-Mr. Rinfret.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Mr. Rinfret moves that Bill No. 8 be now read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview was on his feet.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy but a very few minutes of the time of the house. I simply wish to draw attention to one thing about this bill, and that is that those who oppose it have had no opportunity in the public press of the country to have the case put before the people. I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the statement that appears in one report, that Mr. Church said the utility should be made a part of the Post Office Department. I never used that phrase. I was referring to 1928 when the capital sought was 875,000,000, and at that time I thought it was a good opportunity for our province to take over the system. But that was twenty years ago, in 1928, and I gave my reasons for opposing the bill both in the house and on many other
occasions. I am not one of those who change their vote, who go uphill politically one day and downhill the next day, those who are on again, off again and on again. When I take a stand I maintain it.


James Horace King: Shall the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The CLERK:: Third reading of this bill; troisieme lecture de ce bill.


James Horace King: Mr. Rinfret moves that this bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph Henry Harris: I have been three times on my feet, Mr. Speaker. On the third reading of the bill I should like to make one or two observations. Many of us are public ownership minded and at the same time we are private enterprise individuals. I do not see anything contradictory in those two positions. Public ownership has done a great deal not only for the province of Ontario but for the dominion and I am in favour of it. At the same time, I am one of those who admire and respect individuals who exercise private enterprise, initiative and industry.
My objection to this particular bill is this. This company went ahead from S75 million to $100 million odd, and then they stepped aside at a time when Canada had to finance a war effort. For that I pay them homage and respect. But when they suddenly jump from $150 million to $500 million, that is rather too much. I woidd have been happier to see them take two bites at the cherry, moving along in an orderly sort of way, so that generations to come could look back and say that they had made steady progress. This sudden jump from $150 million to $500 million is too great to ask of the Canadian people, and in the same sentence may I say that it savours of taking advantage of the investing public, the Canadian people.
The Canadian people during the war subscribed to victory loans and what not and received a substantial return for their money, and now that it is no longer necessary to raise victory loans the Bell Telephone Company find a good open market from those who must of necessity invest funds, namely, life insurance companies and other companies, followed by many private individuals who have to invest some of their funds so that they will not remain dormant.
Bell Telephone Company

Fortunately perhaps for the Bell Telephone Company, they struck a period in Canada's history when interest rates were low. Whether or not they should be privileged, by those of us who are charged with the responsibility of administering Canada's affairs, to step into the money market with very low interest rates, is a matter of concern to the Canadian people. Perhaps I should compliment them on being smart enough to do that. At the same time I think of many persons in Canada who are imbued with the idea of public ownership of public utilities, and they are perhaps distressed to see a great public utility enterprise walking into the market and picking up low interest rate moneys to further their own great enterprise.
I do not for a moment detract from the greatness of the telephone enterprise. They are doing a wonderful job on behalf of Canada, setting an example perhaps for the entire world, since we have more telephones per capita in Canada than any other nation. We are highly privileged to be in Canada and to enjoy this convenience; but let us be honest with the public whom we represent here and say to them:	Yes; this great enterprise has
entered the low money market and taken full advantage of it-too great an advantage of it. They should have crawled a little before starting to gallop. They should have moved up to double what they had before; but when they treble that sum, some of us in this house who are private enterprise men, men who are anxious that our fellowmen should receive the rewards that are due them for their enterprise, initiative and industry, cannot stand by and allow the people to be trampled by big interests. And this savours of big interests.
This bill will pass with reservations on the part of many of us who are convinced that we are not a people who will tamper with public industries that are in need for the benefit of a few. This is a great and necessary public utility; it is expanding, and we want it to expand. There are half a million telephones required and they will make life much easier for our people and raise our standard of living. We appreciate that. At the same time I want hon. members to know that some of us who, so far as private enterprise is concerned, may be called 100 per centers, are convinced that private enterprise, with its initiative and industry, s the best thing that Canada can have, not only in our generation but for many generations to come.
Do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we divorce ourselves from the interests of the ordinary individual and give carte blanche to what the man in the street may call big interests. We

do not want big interests. In fact, "big interests" is a misnomer. I have been privileged to be part and parcel of private enterprise having the objective of improving conditions in Canada and not profiting at all therefrom. While we are privileged to be in a category which handles funds and helps the industry of Canada, at the same time we are thinking of what our duty is to our fellowman in the street. I decry the matter of this increase in capitalization. I am sorry that this organization saw fit to gallop before it started to walk, and to jump away up into this high category. I feel disposed to charge it with taking advantage of a situation which developed through no fault of its own, of this house, or of anyone whatsoever, but as a result of a set of conditions in which you, Mr. Speaker, I, and the rest of the hon. members in this chamber did everything in our power to encourage investment in war loans.
The war is now over. That war bond field is gone. But a great public utility comes in and gets that field while that money is around. That is all right. It is perhaps better that it should be this company rather than some great private enterprise; because in the final analysis, what it is planning to do in its developments will, to my mind, be for the general advantage of Canada; I hope and pray that it will be. Being for the general advantage of Canada, I am ready and willing to sit down and say nothing more about it.
At the same time, on the third reading of this bill, I did not think it should be allowed to pass without some of us who are interested in private enterprise and the development of our great institutions in Canada, criticizing those charged with the responsibility of conducting the affairs of this great enterprise for being just a little bit too hungry at this time, and for being just a little bit too anxious at this time to take advantage of a condition which was not of their own making but which developed on account of a world war tragedy which you, Mr. Speaker, and I have sat in this chamber and studied and talked about during the last decade. They are taking advantage of that world tragedy, in my opinion, to get a maximum of cheap money from the investing public of the Dominion of Canada for the furthering of their enterprise.
I thank God that their enterprise is an enterprise of public utility. If it had not been that, it would have been my privilege to have fought tooth and nail against this legislation from the very inception of it, even though in the same sentence I say to you that I am a private enterprise man. I feel that way about it, never for a moment setting aside in

Private Bills
my own mind the fact that, being a private enterprise man, I am also one of those who believe that public utilities for the general welfare of our fellowman are something that should receive the support of all of us, but at the same time all of us should be left free to develop private enterprise, initiative and industry as it moves forward, as it is bred in the heart and soul of the average Canadian to do, and as you and I like to do.
As to public ownership across the board, I say "No"; but as to public ownership for the great and necessary public utility enterprises,
I say "Of course." Let us have private enterprise for all the possible enterprises there are in this great country of natural resources; and fortunately for you and me, and for our fellow Canadians, there are thousands of them, perhaps scores of thousands of them, ready and waiting for the hand of your sons and mine to develop in this great country of ours.
I will close by saying this. I am sorry that this great public utility enterprise saw fit to grab off from the Canadian economy this tremendous sum of money when perhaps two or three bites of the same cherry might, m the course of a decade, accomplish the same purpose.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I had not planned, Mr. Speaker, on speaking further at length on .this legislation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why do so?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But having objected to the granting of third reading last week, I am happy that this opportunity was given for the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) to voice his objections to the passage of this legislation.
Our position has been clearly presented in previous sittings, but I think one final word should be said to express the hope that the company will not wait until they require an extra billion or billion and a half dollars before again coming to parliament. I think it would be in the best interests of this important utility if, should the need develop, the requirements were placed before parliament periodically; and if a satisfactory explanation can be given for the plans for development, I am sure that parliament will grant reasonable concessions without such prolonged debate. I wish to speak on behalf of our group, expressing our continued resistance to the passage of legislation of this type.


William Henry Golding: [s it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


Thomas Langton Church: How can they pay eight per cent? It means an increase in rates almost immediately.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time.


William Henry Golding: Mr. B infret, moves that this bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion,?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Thomas Langton Church: On division. I am for 100
per cent increase.
Motion agreed to on division.



THIRD READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 205. respecting the Canadian Marconi Company-Mr. Whitman.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 210, respecting Canadian Slovak Benefit Society.
William Henry Golding: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


Mr. BROWN:: May this bill be now referred to the committee?


William Henry Golding: Mr. Brown moves, seconded by Mr. Whitman, that this bill be now referred to the banking and commerce committee.


Donald Ferguson Brown: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not believe it is properly referable to the banking and commerce committee. It is not for the incorporation of a company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should be to the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Donald Ferguson Brown: It is only for the consent of the house for an extension of time. I do not think it is properly referable to the miscellaneous private bills committee either.


William Henry Golding: Mr. Brown moves, seconded by Mr. Whitman, that this bill be now referred to the committee of the whole. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Private Bills

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 212, to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Processors Limited.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Thomas Langton Church: Would the mover explain the bill? This is the first time I have seen it.


Mr. MAYBANK:: The purpose of the bill is to incorporate this co-operative organization, which has been operating for some time under a Saskatchewan incorporation, whether by private bill of the Saskatchewan legislature or by letters patent I am not sure, but I think under letters patent. They have found they cannot carry on business satisfactorily in the different provinces any longer under that form of charter, so they are seeking here the same powers they have enjoyed in their own province, at any rate, up to the present time.


Joseph Henry Harris: We are seeing this bill for the first time. What is it about?


Ralph Maybank: It is to incorporate a cooperative society which has existed in Saskatchewan for some time and now seeks incorporation by dominion charter because it has been found impracticable to carry on as heretofore. That is all there is to it.


Joseph Henry Harris: I see the incorporators are George Chester Stewart, rancher; Cornelius Jahnke, rancher; Robert Thomas, farmer; Charles Horatio Powlett, rancher and farmer; and that this is to be a body corporate and politic under the name of Canadian Cooperative Processors Limited. This is to be a million-dollar company, but I presume that is not the money of these individuals. I am not quite sure whether it is the money of the province of Saskatchewan, though from what I see in the press from day to day it may be that they are playing around with the money of the province rather than with their own money. However I do not think it is either; I believe it must come from some other group, so that perhaps the sponsor will tell us whence the million dollars will come and to whom the interest will be paid in the final analysis.
[The Acting Speaker.]


Ralph Maybank: I did not quite understand what the hon. gentleman desired when he asked for an explanation. It is true that this appears to be an ordinary share of capital proposition, but as hon. members will see further along in the bill it is not an ordinary joint stock company that is being organized. The shares of SI each will be subscribed as any other shares are subscribed, it is true, but I believe the money will come from various people who deal with the organization. They do not, however, pay money dividends but dividends upon patronage; and the whole setup is of a co-operative nature.


Joseph Henry Harris: As I say, this is the first time I have seen the bill; perhaps that is my fault. The shares are listed at $1 each; and among other things the company is being formed to purchase or acquire the undertaking carried on by the Horse Co-operative Marketing Association Limited. In the first place, shares at $1 each will not pay for the horses. Then the company is to carry on "the business of producing, collecting, buying, receiving, handling, feeding, slaughtering, processing, transporting, grading, selling, marketing, dealing in, with or without taking title thereto, livestock and livestock products."
This has reference particularly to the handling of horses. From my experience of some thirty or forty years, I should say that today some money may be made in the handling of horses for slaughter, for human consumption. Perhaps thirty thousand of them have gone through hands for which I was responsible during the last three decades, and today I believe some real dividends or returns might be made on an investment of a million dollars. That condition will not last long, however, because I believe the day of the horse is past. In the west I understand that horses are being slaughtered at the rate of two or three hundred a day, and soon they will be all gone. For the benefit of those who may be asked to invest in this company, I say that today, and for perhaps another year or two, your money will return dividends; but these horses are going to be shot, processed for human consumption and shipped to Europe.
*Not long ago I think the hon. member for Swift Current brought us a sample of this horsemeat, to look at or eat if we felt so disposed. I can tell the hon. gentleman that as far back as 1932 I had the pleasure of eating horsemeat in Rotterdam, Holland, so that in common with a few other hon. members I may know something about it. I can remember in my younger days that in one short year I shot ten thousand horses and turned them into pickled beef, the sort of meat that was served at a banquet in Swift Current

Private Bills
not many moons ago. You enjoyed it, too; it was good food. It is good food for our friends in Europe who today are starving. So I say more power to you in the development of this co-operative organization incorporated under this bill. It would be a great thing for Canada to get rid of those horses, which are eating the grass off our cattle ranges. Then we could put cattle in their place.
But that is not my purpose in rising this evening. Just now we are ready for the harvest in making real money out of the slaughter of horses, and for several reasons. First, the people of Europe are hungry. The people of Europe are anxious for beef, meat and food. The people of Europe enjoy eating horsemeat.
As a matter of fact, I remember being in Holland in 1932. The first course we had at our meal was cheese and crackers. Then we had lemon pie; and the last and best course was horsemeat. I had that in Amsterdam. It was served as the last and perhaps the best of the three courses served in a full-course meal.
It is to the general advantage of Canada to get rid of these horses. Perhaps I might take a minute more of the time of the committee, and in doing so I shall make sure that my hon. friend has an opportunity to have his bill passed before the hour expires. In the old days, back in 1925, 1926 or 1927 we let horses run off the range, right up to the far north as far as the Thompson river, and Kamloops. We chased them all down through the foothills of the Rockies and across the border to the state of Montana, I believe it was. Swartz Brothers had planned the slaughtering of
10.000	horses a year south of the border; and these horses traversed the border free of charge. This firm, in turn, slaughtered them and manufactured them into edible horse beef which, in turn, was shipped to Holland. Holland was the central point for the market. Holland sent the horse beef into Belgium and into Germany at prices f.o.b. Rotterdam which were at least ten to twenty per cent higher than prices existing in Rotterdam for ordinary cow beef. In other words, horse beef sold at a premium on the European market over cow beef.
Part of the reason for the premium was this, that quarters of horse beef properly cured and properly taken care of by those who know how to handle horsemeat, and who handle it in a manner similar to that in which we handle moose meat, were placed on the market. Instead of cutting a cross-section of the meat, as you do with beef cattle, you follow down the seam and pull out eight or nine-pound chunks of horsemeat covered by muscular film which encloses those eight or nine pounds, leaving that muscular film around those eight
or nine pounds, and then pickling, curing and packing it, and shipping it to Europe where, in turn, it is smoked in large warehouses in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. You leave that muscular membrane around the eight or nine pounds of shoulder, ham or some other part of the horsemeat, and you find-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Joseph Henry Harris: I shall have finished in a minute.


William Henry Golding: We are now discussing section 1 of the bill, which deals with incorporation.


Joseph Henry Harris: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I shall stick religiously to section 1. Before section 1 is the preamble, which prays that this petition be granted. It is a petition pertaining to the persons hereinafter mentioned, and I am referring to those persons hereinafter mentioned. And the persons to whom I am referring are those who are incorporating. These are the persons, sir, who have the great idea that not only will this be for the well-being of the people of Canada, but that it will be for the greater advantage of Canada.
Let me say to the persons who are mentioned in the preamble and in section 1 that I am referring to the product in question, prepared as I have tried to illustrate in what I have said thus far. I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, realizing that I cannot go much farther in discussing that phase of the matter.
Let me add this one sentence, however, that I have seen in scores of farmers' back kitchens in Holland, Belgium and Germany four, five, six, seven, eight or nine-pound chunks of horsemeat, smoked, hanging in those back kitchens. And when the labourer, the breadwinner, went out to work he would have a loaf of rye bread under his arm, and his dear wife would pull down these eight or nine-pound smoked hams.
Probably they were from Canada, but they were shipped from the United States. She would cut off two or three slices; and with those two or three slices, along with that loaf of rye bread, he would go out and work for twelve hours. That is the man who, in the final analysis, will be affected here. These are the men who are praying for this petition in the preamble and in section 1 of the bill. But I wish to warn the committee that the supply of horsemeat in not inexhaustible. The day will come when there will not be as many of these horses available. And I want to warn the committee that that day may be already here, when those who consume this product, in connection with this million-dollar investment, will not want to buy from Canada; and
Private Bills

this, for a very simple reason I should like to state in two or three sentences, namely, that they remember that in 1932 the empire trade pacts were passed, at which time Canada took away from the people in Holland and in Belgium what is commonly known as the pig market, or the meat market adjacent to them in London. At that time the market was given to us in Canada.
Therefore they in turn will buy their horse-meat, and the products I have mentioned, from the United States, in preference to buying it from Canada. That is why the condition is such today, and has been ever since the empire trade agreements.
The petitioners in the preamble to this bill may have great ideas about how much money they will make out of this million-dollar investment-from a province, by the way, which I did not think was asking for outside investments. I think it is our duty to warn them that in the days to come they might not make as much profit out of this venture as they might be making now, when there is a shortage of foodstuffs throughout the world.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the sponsor of the bill might have made some explanatory remarks when he was introducing it. I should like to know a little more about it before it passes. Perhaps the questions which have come to my mind as I have read it over for the first time might be easily answered; but I think the sponsor should say a few words about it.
May I ask him why a joint stock company will not suffice for this particular form of organization, and why they have asked for a special act of parliament.
Secondly, I would ask him why the present charter, which I presume is a provincial one, is not adequate for the purposes of this particular organization.
Thirdly, I suggest that either this committee of the whole or some committee to which the bill should be referred ought to go into the matter of how this company is being taxed or is allowed to be free of taxation; because in recent years this particular business which the company carries on has grown to a substantial size.
I shall not discuss the sections of the bill individually, but I would point out that they contain peculiar powers; and I should-


William Henry Golding: We are now
discussing section 1.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes, incorporation. I should like to ask if this bill was before the committee of banking and commerce of the other hon. house.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member had been in the house a few minutes ago he would have heard the bill referred to the committee of the whole. It was referred to this committee, and we are now dealing with section 1.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I would still ask the sponsor of the bill to give us an outline of the reasons why they seek incorporation under a special act of parliament.


Ralph Maybank: If I understand the questions, the first one was this: Why will not a joint company charter under the ordinary laws of Manitoba or perhaps under the laws of Canada or those of the Secretary of State suffice for what is desired here? The answer is that these statutes do not provide for cooperative concerns of the sort this company is. That has been gone into carefully by competent legal authorities and they have concluded that the legislation simply is not there for them.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask-


Ralph Maybank: May I just answer the second question, and then the hon. member can go on with the eighth, ninth and tenth? As I recall the second question, the hon. member wanted to know why Saskatchewan incorporation was not sufficient. Had this cooperative organization been carrying on business only in Saskatchewan, then a Saskatchewan incorporation would have been sufficient because they have a statute in Saskatchewan which permits the setting up of this type of organization.
They have been running into some difficulty with regard to doing business in Alberta, to which province they expanded some years ago. They are doing quite a bit of business there. Alberta has been co-operating with them and allowing them to carry on, but that province is doubtful whether its laws permit the registration of an organization of this kind built up under the Saskatchewan statute to w'hich I referred. Similarly, they have been experiencing questions in this respect in Manitoba, although the amount of business there has been relatively small. For these and other similar reasons they have concluded that the only way in which they can carry on in all the provinces is to obtain dominion incorporation.
The question of taxation has been raised, and the answer simply is that, whatever are the laws with respect to co-operative organizations, this organization will be under those laws. If there is no taxation of co-operatives, they will not be taxed; if there is, they will be

Private Bills
taxed. If they come within, the class of those who do pay a tax, then of course the tax will be paid just the same as by any other co-operative.
I can quite understand hon. gentlemen who do not like co-operatives endeavouring to prevent incorporation of them, and I am not referring especially to my hon. friend who has just spoken. I say that can be understood, but surely we in this parliament, when dealing with an organization which is a co-operative-


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. member is imputing a motive to hon. members of this house.


Ralph Maybank: I made no reference to the hon. member for Danforth.


Joseph Henry Harris: I ask for a ruling on my point of order. Will you give me a ruling on my point of order, Mr. Chairman? My hon. friend is imputing motives to other hon. members of this house by saying that other hon. members may be opposed to co-operatives.


Ralph Maybank: I did not say that at all; I did not impute motives to any hon. member of this house. I said it could be understood that persons who did not like co-operatives would not like to see them incorporated. There was no reference, for example


Joseph Henry Harris: I would like the hon. member to state who those persons are so that any imputation of motive may be withdrawn from any hon. member.


Ralph Maybank: Let us clear it up. If there has been any imputation of motives contrary to the rules of the house of which I am guilty, I withdraw the alleged imputation but I deny the allegation.
On the whole, the co-operative organizations which have been springing up all over the country are a good thing for the Dominion of Canada. While I do not go as far as some who say that it would be well if all business were conducted in that way, I think this House of Commons will take the position that it is desirable to give leave to operators to operate and to help them in every way possible. There may be differences of opinion as to just what is the best way of doing it, but I am sure that it will be considered the best part of wisdom to encourage co-operatives and not to refuse or delay charters to such organizations.


William Henry Golding: If hon. members will read the clause under discussion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hon. member has told us why this particular organization could not seek incorporation in one of the western provinces; but why could it not seek incorporation under the ordinary law of the Dominion of Canada? How is it that the ordinary co-operative is able to function without a special act of parliament?


Ralph Maybank: The answer is that the
matter has been taken up with the Secretary of State and there is no dominion law under which this sort of incorporation could be had, or of co-operatives generally.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask if every
co-operative has to have a special act of parliament to be brought into being?


Ralph Maybank: I cannot answer that, because the hon. member is taking in too much territory.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hon. member seems to indicate that this company cannot do it; therefore no other company can seek incorporation under the ordinary law. The only deduction to be drawn, with which you must agree, is that every co-operative must have a special act of parliament.


Ralph Maybank: Could be.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I think someone should answer that.


Thomas John Bentley: That question can be answered. Until there is a dominion co-operative act, any co-operative association that desires to operate throughout the dominion will have to get an act through this house.
Section- agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Capital.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the sponsor of this bill, or even better the hon. member for Swift Current, can tell me about this section 3. which reads:
The capital stock of the company shall be one million dollars of common stock divided into one million shares of one dollar each.
Can the hon. member tell me if any of that stock has been subscribed up to the -moment, and by whom? Where is it proposed to get this stock? Where do -they propose to get [DOT]$1,000,000 and why do they want $1,000,000?


Ralph Maybank: If I understood the questions correctly, the first one was whether any part of this million dollars has been subscribed. I presume not. I do not see how they could subscribe to a not yet existent
Private Bills

organization. I do not know whether that was the question asked, but- if it was that would be the answer I would give. Sometimes the hon. member speaks clearly and stentoriously and it is a pleasure to listen to him, but at other times his voice is very low and one does not always hear him.
I think another question was where the $1,000,000 was to come from. It is to come from those who subscribe it; that is all.
I think the other question was why they wanted $1,000,000. I suppose the answer to that is that a company would make arrangements for capitalization up to a certain amount; but, as we all know, they do not have to have it all subscribed before -they can do business. As I recall, ten per cent must be put up in cash. They would be governed by the usual laws of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia or any other province, the usual public utility laws governing stock subscriptions.


Joseph Henry Harris: My hon. friend is having some difficulty with regard to the scale through which my quiet words range. I will raise it to a little higher pitch and I hope he hears what I am trying to say. Perhaps if I go more slowly he will be able to absorb the questions which I am trying to ask. What is the use of my hon. friend rising in his place and saying that there is no particular investment here?


Ralph Maybank: I did not say that.


Joseph Henry Harris: I ask my hon. friend the member for Swift Current to be a witness when I say there is a substantial investment in this same enterprise in Swift Current which is being extended to Edmonton and Alberta. I know whereof I speak because I have been privileged to sign some cheques for their by-products. There must be a substantial investment in this enterprise, and for the sponsor of the bill to intimate to the hon. member for Swift Current or even to the disinterested hon. member for Danforth that there is no substantial investment there, and that this is something new for which they are asking $1,000,000 is all eyewash.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The statements my hon. friend are attributing to me are entirely incorrect. I did not state the sort of thing he is declaring I stated. He is just in error. I made no such statement.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am in the same position as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat; I did not hear what he said. I reiterate the statement I

made a moment ago. The investment is not only there now to the tune of $90,000, but I know that forty or fifty carloads of by-products have been sold by this organization within the last twenty-four months. Of that I do not complain. I say that is for the general advantage of Canada. But to leave the impression on this assembly that this is not a large and going concern, when it has been going for some twenty-four months or more-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph Henry Harris: It is not carried. I say, Mr. Chairman, that is giving a wrong
impression to the committee.


Mr. WHITMAN:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: With all due respect to my hon. friend, he does not know what he is thinking about, much less what he is talking about; and when you do not know what you are talking about, keep quiet. It so happens that I know and the hon. member for Swift Current knows the facts, and I would like to smoke out the hon. member for Swift Current. I will back him up on the great job that Swift Current and this organization are doing for the well-being of Canada. The hon. member for Swift Current probably knows a great deaJl more about this than the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring the bill, and I would like to smoke out the hon. member for Swift Current. I wish there was time for him to get up and tell the story, and if he does, I will correct him where he makes an error.
Do not be in a hurry, Mr. Chairman, because it is not my purpose to talk this bill out. My only purpose is that the members of this house shall be honest with themselves and vote honestly. The only question I am asking the sponsor of the bill is this: Who will have this million dollar share to play around with in the next decade. If people want to invest their money in this enterprise, that is their business; but those who are charged with representing the people of Canada, like the hon. member for Swift Current and myself, have the responsibility of being honest with the house.
When we look forward to what may happen in the next ten years and see some danger perhaps to the investment of this $1,000,000, shall we not rise in our places and say to our people: Be a bit careful. It is all right to make money today, but the mares may not be coming forward with colts in the same numbers as when you and I were young Maggie, and where are you going to get the dividends to pay on this $1,000,000? I hope the $1,000,000 comes from Saskatchewan to teach them something about co-operatives, and I hope it will teach the people of the rest of Canada to

Supply-Agriculture
be a little slow about venturing into a line of business which, in the course of the next ten years, may not pay dividends.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Objects.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Paragraph (e) reads:
(e) purchase or redeem and re-issue shares of the company, provided that such purchase or redemption shall not reduce the number of shareholders to less than five; provided further, that the powers of purchase or redemption of shares shall not be exercised when the liabilities of the company exceed fifty per cent of the value of its assets.
What I want to be certain of, and others I am sure, is this. Why is this very peculiar power being asked for that the company shall not reduce the number of shareholders to less than five? Also, what would happen to the assets of the company if the business were wound up, as the hon. member for Danforth suggests might happen if there were no product for the company to work upon? I should be interested in having an answer.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


William Henry Golding: The hour for private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business before six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE	[DOT]
Production services-Health of animals-
17.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,611,508.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I am not criticizing this vote, because I know it is necessary, but I want to ask a question which has to do with the estimates generally and which is of importance to the people of Canada. I notice that the amount for temporary assistance is increased by something like 1121,000. That may be necessary; I do not know. Would it not be possible for the Department of Agriculture to submit its monthly payroll to the bureau of statistics, showing the number of employees and the amounts paid for their services, so that the people of Canada would know whether economy was being exercised throughout the service? It would be a check on the spending of the government. As I say, there is an increase of $121,000 for temporary
assistance. Yet the minister was able to get on with less than that during the war. So many of these items for temporary assistance throughout the service are increasing. Session after session I have asked for a return showing the number of employees in the government service and the wages paid monthly. We get them some time after. I wonder if the government has not some system of accounting so that it can keep up to date from month to month. Perhaps reports could come from the bureau of statistics so that the people would know what is going on.


James Garfield Gardiner: The temporary employees in connection with this vote are largely the part-time veterinarians in the country who are checking cattle for tuberculosis. I think it will be admitted by all hon. members who have been following the discussions that it is the wish of most members of the committee that there should be more rather than fewer of these men. As a matter of fact, we are hiring all we can find and putting them on work that has to be done, and that necessitates higher payments in salaries and expense accounts.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That does not answer the question. I said I was not criticizing. I heard the debate in the house the other night when some hon. gentlemen who know all about this matter asked for more men. What I am asking is that there be a report not only from the minister's department but from all the departments, submitted once a month, showing the number of employees in the various services and also the amount of money paid by way of salaries and wages by the department. That would provide a check on expenditures. I think the public would like to know the numbers. We never hear this until the budget comes on. That is the only time we get the comparison from year to year. When one asks for such returns it usually takes two or three months to get the reply, and that does not seem right to me. With civil servants in the department, a report such as I speak of could be got right out, without trouble, by a well administered department. They ought to have some idea of the monthly payroll if they pay the bills. They must know how many people there are employed. That would provide a check on expenditures from time to time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, as the. hon. member has intimated, there is a paylist every month and it shows the numbers. It can be taken off that. One of the difficulties in getting returns out in answer to questions is the difficulty I have experienced. A few days ago I brought down a return, which hon. members
Supply-Agriculture

will find in. Hansard, stating the number of employees we have in the Department of Agriculture. It starts back in 1912 or thereabouts. There was a question as to how many we had that year, how many we had, say in 1915, in 1920, in 1930 and so on. Records were not kept in the same way back in 1912 as they are today, and it is difficult to bring down in a short time an answer which is comparable for the different years, though there is no difficulty in bringing it down to the. end of last year or the last month for which the records have been made up. That can be done on short notice, and a statement of the kind that has been suggested is possible, at the end of any month, as to what the paylist is.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have, these records going back for some time. I always ask for one every year to bring it up to date. But even so, it takes two or three months to get the return. I ask for a return, and it takes two or three months to get it. It would be a good idea to have a return made once a month for all departments. It might come a month late, but it would not involve a great deal of work. You have the payrolls every month and the number of people employed during that month, and it would give some indication as to whether there was economy in the department or not. I am not criticizing the number of people the minister has employed as temporaries, because I do not know enough about the matter. Some members have been asking for more on account of certain tests, and I am not criticizing that, but I say that the public would like to have these statistics month by month.


Joseph Henry Harris: This vote covers all items under No. 17. I am not rising to express any particular criticism. Rather, I shall try to enunciate an idea which I think will be for the general advantage of Canada. This item for the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act covers the feeding of swine with garbage, does it not? This covers matters relating to hog cholera?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: Hog cholera in the areas surrounding our cities is, as the minister knows, a serious matter. Herds of from 100 to 1,000 are often wiped out in forty-eight hours or less. During the last thirty years the department has done a good job in the inspection of these feeding establishments. With hogs selling at present-day prices, these feeding establishments are a popular line of endeavour for some of our people to get into, particularly those who have returned from the

last war. I know of three young men, a major, a sergeant and another returned man, who invested their entire savings during the war in a venture of this kind.
The department is doing a good job in the inspection of such premises, the owners of which undertake to feed refuse or garbage from the large centres of population, and I encourage them in this, but I would ask the minister to look up the records and put on Hansard the incidence of hog cholera in the suburban areas surrounding our large cities.
Naturally I am thinking more particularly of the city of Toronto; but I am also thinking of Ottawa, where there is a sizeable industry in the feeding of hogs on garbage collected in the city, and I am also thinking of Calgary. I wish the minister would be good enough to put on the record the incidence of hog cholera in Canada. We go along for four or five or six years with very little hog cholera, and suddenly it breaks out in the maritime provinces or western Canada or Ontario or western Ontario-out Chatham way and Windsor way -and these outbreaks will wipe out the entire investment of hog feeders in different parts of the country.
The feeding of hogs on garbage is for the general advantage of Canada, because the production of hogs by that means is of real magnitude in the output of hog products in the country. I would ask the minister to put on the record the figures in regard to hog cholera outbreaks during the last year, let us say, for the guidance of those who are investing money in the business of which I have spoken.


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend knows, those who feed garbage are licensed. The number of licensed feeders across Canada is 579, and the approximate number of hogs fed is 52,750. Of course instructions go out for the cooking of the garbage; and I am informed that if they are carefully followed, and if the feeding lots or pens are kept in the condition required by the regulation and no outside contact is permitted, it is possible to avoid having hog cholera. It has been suggested that I put on the record what has happened in connection with it. How many years back would the hon. member like me to go?


Joseph Henry Harris: Just a couple.


James Garfield Gardiner: For 1947 there has been none. There was one outbreak in 1946-47, and forty-four hogs were involved. That was in Ontario. In 1945-46 there was one outbreak in Nova Scotia with 184 hogs involved; there were two outbreaks in Ontario, with forty-four hogs involved. For the three or

/S uppl y-A griculture
four years prior to that, there was a great prevalence of hog cholera. The most difficult year was 1941-42 when there were three outbreaks in Nova Scotia, with 406 hogs involved. In New Brunswick there were three outbreaks, with 186 hogs involved. In Quebec there were nine outbreaks with 1,044 hogs involved. In Ontario, there were fifteen outbreaks with 6,437 hogs involved. In Manitoba there were eleven outbreaks, with 619 hogs involved. There has been none since 1942 in Quebec. There has been none in Saskatchewan since 1940. There has been none in New Brunswick since 1944-45, none in Nova Scotia in 1946 or 1947, and none at all in Canada last year.


Joseph Henry Harris: I want to thank the minister for the information he has given.
I should like to makes one observation for the benefit of the record. During the last five or six years there has been a great advertising campaign carried on over every radio station to which one listened, with regard to using more soap and more detergents of one kind and another. For the benefit of the minister's department, I am asking it now to do some research work on the question I am about to raise.
In washing down the dishes, thousands of pounds of cleansers of one kind of another and thousands of pounds of soap and alkalis of one kind or another find their way into the garbage can and from the garbage can, after being properly handled, into the systems of these 50,000 hogs. In the days to come, in the next decade, those 50.000 hogs the minister told us about, which are being produced every year, will get more and more doses of alkalis and soaps. I am asking the department to study this problem, to do some research work and to give some advice to these 1,044 hog feeders across Canada in the handling of their garbage before they feed it to the hogs, so that Canada's economy may be implemented by the production of
50,000	hogs from this garbage.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall be pleased to have that matter looked into.


Anthony Hlynka: In view of the shortage of veterinarians in Canada, what possibilities are there for the utilization of the services of veterinary surgeons who recently arrived in Canada as displaced persons? I understand that a number of them are graduates of various universities in Europe, but that they find it difficult to obtain permission to practise their profession. One of these young men wrote to me and told me that he took this matter up with the provincial authorities in Manitoba and also with the university there,
but was told that, before he would be allowed to practise his profession, he would have to write an examination that the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa prepared. Is that right?
I should also like to ask this question. Most of these young men do not yet speak the English language. Would there be any possibility of arranging an examination in the language which they understand? I do not think these men should be held back if there is a shortage of veterinary surgeons. They do not necessarily have to speak perfect English to understand the cows. I am sure that they could render good service to this country. What procedure could these young men follow in order to be able to find some employment in their particular line?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been making some study of the possibility of getting veterinarians from D.P. camps and elsewhere; as a matter of fact, we have made a check on the number that are in the camps, the number who speak English and the number who speak other languages. I quite realize that there are certain sections of western Canada, particularly in the rural areas, where it would probably be an advantage to be able to speak some other language as well as English, or probably even to speak some other language even if unable to speak English.
But that is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is whether or not the person is a veterinary and has graduated from an institution which is recognized in Canada as being of as high a standard as that of the two institutions we have here. If so, and if they have passed examinations in those institutions which are recognized as being of equal standing with ours, then they have a right to register here and will be dealt with in the same manner as persons coming in from any other country would be dealt with at any other time. Up to now there are none that we know of who have been registered in any of the provinces. But we have been doing something about the matter ourselves with the idea of encouraging them rather than otherwise. We have had these lists, as I say, and we have been negotiating with the associations and otherwise to try to get some of these men out, because we want the work done.


Anthony Hlynka: I know two persons who arrived recently. One is a young man and the other is a young girl. Both are graduates of European universities in that profession, and both, of course, do not speak the English language well enough to be able to write an examination. Could these examinations be
Supply-Agriculture

arranged in the languages which they speak; and would that have to be done through the colleges or the provincial department of agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the difficulty in connection with that is largely involved in what the provinces themselves would require. I imagine it would be possible for the western provinces to find persons who could examine these people in their own language. But if that were not possible, then, of course, an examination would require to be conducted in English. The main point upon which the authorities will have to be satisfied is the standing of the university from which these persons received their graduation; and an examination of the courses that are given there I think would make it possible for a qualified person here to determine whether they had been fully instructed. But even after that, it might be required that there be some examination written in the province in order that they might be admitted. If that were true, I think it would either have to be in English, or they would have to be able to secure someone who could set the papers and examine them in their own language.


Robert Earle Drope: Now that the city members have exhausted their questions, there may be a chance for someone from rural Ontario to ask one. Is the department making any progress in regard to the T.B. testing of cattle? As far as Northumberland is concerned, some attempt at checking was made last year, after the tests had been discontinued for many years; but, as far as I can ascertain, not even a township was completed. It was a hit-or-miss program. They did parts of townships, apparently with no idea of cleaning up any of them at all; but, as far as I can find out, nothing has been even started this year. So I would ask the minister if there is any intention of completing that county this year, or what his policy is in that regard.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that they started to inspect there in August of 1947. They have been doing their best with the men at their disposal. I understand that the test is not completed, but it will be completed at the earliest possible day the men can be made available.


Mr. CHARLTON:: A moment ago the minister intimated that the D.P. situation had been thought about by the department. I wonder just how far they have gone in that regard, whether anything definite has come out of that investigation, or whether any decision has been reached.


James Garfield Gardiner: My information is that the matter has been discussed by the Ontario and Quebec associations, and perhaps some of the others, but no final decision has been reached from the point of view of the associations, as far as we know. We have been keeping as closely in touch with it as possible, but up to the moment there has been no final decision.


John Alpheus Charlton: All the associations are being asked for advice.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not so certain their advice has been asked, but I understand that some have been discussing the matter on their own initiative, and some at our request.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: During the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I asked if there had been any increase in the number of veterinarians in Ontario, and also whether any increases in remuneration had been offered veterinary inspectors in order to attract more men into the service. I should like to ask also whether there has been any increase in the compensation paid when animals have to be destroyed. Further, I want to ask whether it is necessary to follow through on all the red tape when the department hires a veterinarian for part-time work. I am told by private veterinarians back home that they have to make out so many reports for the department that they become exasperated and say, "Well, if we have to do this we would just as soon not bother with departmental work". Then in 1946, again in 1947 and again this year, I was promised that a re-test would be carried out in Durham county, but as yet that has not been done. Can the minister say when this test will be commenced?


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the pay of veterinarians, the hon. member will find that the other evening I put all that information on record, and indicated that there had been a considerable increase in the pay. I do not think it necessary to go all over that matter again tonight.
As to the returns, it depends a great deal upon the work the veterinarians are able to drum up for themselves, as to whether or not they are anxious to do this kind of work. A few years ago I was plagued in season and out by veterinarians all over the country who wanted to work for the government. Now they are not quite so keen. The reason is, of course, obvious, now that there is more money in livestock. A person is more likely to call in a veterinarian to save an animal when it is worth $200 than he would be when it was worth only $20, and that has altered the situation materially. But when you are making

Supply-Agriculture
reports on animals being checked for T.B. you must have records. There is no possibility of accepting anything but complete records, because otherwise they do not mean anything. Or if you are checking animals for Bang's disease or T.B., before they are sent to the United States, complete reports are necessary. Anyone who does not want to make out those reports is not of much use. It would not pay us to have these people do part-time work if they did not give us complete reports. We must have full reports, and anyone not prepared to make them cannot be employed parttime.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Then can the minister tell me when the test will be commenced in Durham county?


James Garfield Gardiner: Durham was first tested in 1936. Some 38,900 cattle were tested and the reactors numbered 2,483, or 7-3 per cent. It was rechecked in 1943, when 44,286 cattle were tested with only 184 reactors, or -41 per cent, which is not a bad record. They should have been retested in 1947, but up to the present we have not had a staff sufficiently large to permit us to carry out that recheck. In the light of the check of 1943, I should not think conditions there would be bad at the present time.


John Alpheus Charlton: Last Friday evening the minister said he thought there would not be more than four or five graduates coming into the service this year. Has he anything more definite to tell us now?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have nothing more definite than that. We can only guess even at the four or five.


John Alpheus Charlton: You have had no applications at all?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not beyond that number.


John Alpheus Charlton: You have had four or
five applications?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. That is as near as we can give it to you, just offhand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
18.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $567,845.
Mr. BRADSHAW:: May I ask the minister if this increase represents a greater amount to be paid per head, or simply an increase in the amount of work?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no increase per head. It is an increase in the total amount to be paid out. In other words, more inspections are being made and more money will be required.


Albert James Bradshaw: Since our county is
under test, I want to point out to the minister that the farmers have a real grievance in regard to the compensation being paid. It does not seem to be enough. The total expenditure on agriculture in this country is far short of what I think it should be. From time to time it has been said of some departments of the government that Canada is doing more than any other country. I want to point out that in the United States the appropriation for agriculture is SI,247 million. We are about one-twelfth the size of the United States; therefore we should devote about $100 million to agriculture. Last year we spent a measly $28 million, and this year it will be something like $41,810,000. I am not advocating that we should spend $100 million on agriculture, but I am suggesting that in some particular cases we should spend more money.
The young farmer who has bought a herd, or the veteran who has bought a herd, and loses it, is not getting a proper compensation at this amount per head. The minister has pointed out that the value of the beef at the present time compensates in this matter. But I would point out that, in respect of the dairy herd, the farmer whose herd goes down is not the seller, because those animals are sent to the slaughterhouse where the packer becomes the buyer and the seller, and the farmer gets just what they give him. In that respect he does not receive proper remuneration for the value of his milk cows. I would urge that this compensation be raised to at least a comparative figure to compensate these people for their loss.


James Garfield Gardiner: The position is that there has been no inclination to change these amounts as prices go up and down. I must say, however, that the compensation has been higher in the past at times than it is non'. It was higher back about 1918, about the end of the first war when, I presume for the reasons now being stated, prices of cattle were higher.
But we have hesitated to change the amounts up and down any more than is absolutely necessary, because there is always the question as to whether people need more money when the valuations are low than they do when they are high. People who are getting only $20 for the animal perhaps need $100 more, when it is worth only $20 in somebody's market, than they do w'hen they can get $100 for what is left, for what they could sell, in addition to whatever remuneration they could get. Speaking personally, the last animal I
Supply-Agriculture

had that went down I marketed in the city of London, and I got $105 for it. I did not collect anything from the government on it; but I could have collected for a purebred animal two-thirds of $150. That would not be bad if you could get two-thirds of $150. and then get $105 in addition. The higher the value of the animal, the more likely you are to be able to get a reasonable return. Many of these animals w-hich go down have only a gland in the neck, or something of that kind, which shows reaction. When that is cut out, the remainder of the animal can be utilized quite safely, and the animal is sold.
However I know there are cases such as those mentioned a moment ago, where there are dairy cattle which perhaps are not very useful for meat purposes, and very little can be obtained for them. They are put into tankage, and it does not bring much to the individual. All I can say is that we shall look into the matter, check what has been done over the years, and see whether any adjustment can be made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-[DOT]
19.	Livestock and poultry, $1,022,390.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, recent
events have brought handicaps to the poultry industry in British Columbia. I crave the indulgence of the committee for a few moments to explain the growth of that industry, the difficulties under which it labours, and to ask the minister if he is prepared to offer any solution, so that confidence may be restored in the industry.
During the past six or seven years the government has encouraged people on the Pacific seaboard to go into the poultry business. There have been representatives from the federal government and representatives from the British food interests urging small farmers to increase their flocks and to construct additional houses.
To give some idea of the enormous growth in the poultry industry as a result of the impetus given by the government, let me point out that, while in 1939 the value of the egg crop in British Columbia was something over $4 million, in 1947 it had increased to almost $16 million.
A few years ago the amount of eggs produced n British Columbia was only one-tenth of chat produced in Ontario. We are now producing one-third and the industry in British Columbia has become second only to that in Ontario. However, in addition to egg production, the production of dressed poultry has increased1 tremendously. I believe last year

something like 12,000,000 pounds of dressed poultry were shipped to Great Britain. I know that even within the last few months carloads of turkeys and dressed chickens have been shipped to points throughout Canada and to the United States. In so far as breeding stock is concerned, shipments of chicks and poults to other parts of Canada have been given a new impetus, as a result really for the first time of the movement of these day-old chicks and poults by air. This remarkable achievement has been accomplished largely through the assistance given by the government.
In 1942 the government offered assistance to the poultrymen of British Columbia by a freight assistance policy. Last year, according to the figures I have, over 100,000 tons of wheat, 33,000 tons of mill feeds and 46,000 tons of barley were sent into British Columbia, on which freight assistance was given. Now we find the ceiling has been removed from the price of that feed grain going to the poultry-men of British Columbia. Before that ceiling was removed, however, the British Columbia poultry industry agreed to sell twenty-five per cent of its entire production of eggs to Great Britain at the definite price of 36}4 cents per dozen for eggs in the spring, this price to increase to 43Yi cents per dozen on September 1. Although the price remains the same, the cost of production has gone up, largely due to the removal of the ceiling price on feed grains.
Not only that, but as everybody knows, in the last few weeks freight rates have been increased; and, as has been pointed out many times in the house, this affects British Columbia particularly because of the unsatisfactory mountain differential. In addition to that, costs of other materials, such as lumber required to go into the construction of breeding pens, houses and the like, have gone up. The result of that is that egg production this year is estimated to drop by something like sixty-six per cent. I believe those were the figures given by Professor Lloyd of the poultry division of the University of British Columbia. The British Columbia poultry industries council have asked that a subsidy be placed upon eggs in order that confidence may be restored. I do not know whether that is possible or whether that is the intention of the government, but I think the minister is aware of the difficulties facing the poultrymen of British Columbia and I would appreciate it if he could indicate what is to be done.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been an increase in the return under the British contract. Beginning with January 1, the price of eggs was put up for the spring period. Then it dropped down for the period we have just entered, and it goes up again in September. As was

Supply-Agriculture
suggested in the last few remarks of the hon. member, I met the British Columbia poultry-men's association last week when I was in Vancouver and they made representations with regard to their present position. I did not feel that I was in a position to consider properly the details with regard to all plans associated with the British contract and with the future, so I agreed to send out to British Columbia our chief poultryman, Mr. Brown, and I asked Mr. Shaw to accompany him.
Mr. Shaw is the director of marketing, and some of this could be better discussed under marketing when I shall have more information here. Mr. Shaw was to be along with Mr. Brown for this particular matter and also to make some check on the other difficulties related to British Columbia that we were discussing this afternoon.
My understanding is that what they desire to have done is to have the date in September when the price is increased under the contract advanced. I have reason for thinking Mr. Shaw and Mr. Brown will be able to make proposals to them which may be satisfactory; if not satisfactory, they will be helpful. They will be along the lines of their suggestion that the date be advanced and that some increase be allowed. This is not altogether to take care of increases in feed, although the price of wheat either has advanced or may advance in the period after the new crop comes in, as a result of wheat going up to $2 a bushel. That will have some effect upon the price at which wheat will be sold both for human consumption and for the feeding of livestock.
There will be some effect and probably that will be taken care of by advancing the date at which the increase in price will take place for eggs bought in the fall season, but in any event the men are out there discussing it with them. Whatever is applied there will be applied right across Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service
[Stage Direction]
20.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $31,000' to Canadian seed growers' association, $963,764.
John Alpheus Charlton: I have a rather peculiar situation to bring to the attention of the minister. Item 61 in the auditor general's report for 1947 reads:
61. Vote 477.-Beginning in 1943-44, the agricultural supplies board entered into contracts with growers, under a plan styled "The Dominion Seed Program," to ensure adequate production of vegetable seeds. Seed produced by growers, but not disposed of by them, was purchased by the board and stored pending resale.
The cost of seed thus purchased was $234,358.74, including freight and storage. Sales amounted to $9,615.25. Thus, $224,743.49 is invested in 298,898 pounds of unsold seed.
I figure that out at $1.07 a pound. Could the minister give us any information about that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am afraid I shall have to leave that until we reach item 47, special products board.


Mr. McCUAIG:: What progress has been made in the development of chemical weed killer, especially in connection with field crops in the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member will realize from his own experiences that great strides have been made in the utilization of chemicals for the killing of weeds. The enormous distribution which is going on this year would indicate that farmers are convinced that this is a most effective method of dealing with weeds. We are following other activities and are carrying out experiments ourselves at Indian Head and elsewhere.


Duncan John McCuaig: I realize that the minister cannot keep in step with all developments, but this is of great importance to the west. You cannot kill weeds in our part of the country like you can in Ontario, because you do not get rain and they do not germinate. You have trouble when you summer-fallow and then put in your crop. Of course the chemical weed killer will kill the weeds and your crop comes along. I thought the minister might know just what supplies would be available and what would be the cost per acre. I understand that they are developing a machine.


James Garfield Gardiner: Supplies are available, but I am sorry that I cannot give the cost per acre of utilizing this weed killer. I understand that demands are being met.


Mr. JUTRAS:: There is one suggestion I should like to make. This weed killer can do more good than anything else to prevent weeds from developing along roadways and on properties that are not being used. Weeds often start in the west along highways and road allowances. Quite often the municipality or the province or the federal department do not look after these lands, and weeds develop and gradually move on to the fields. Manitoba intends to go into this work on a large scale. I mean spraying the road allowance or highways and preventing the weeds from spreading over the fields. I suggest to the federal government that if the provinces do that work it should co-operate and do the same thing on federal property.
<534
Supply-Agriculture


Percy Ellis Wright: As the minister says, there will be a great extension this year of this type of summer-fallowing and of weed killing in western Canada. There are a number of formulae on the market, some of which are good and some of which may not be so good. The department would be well advised to check the formulae and issue information to the farmers who are using them as to their strength and usefulness. Otherwise I fear many people will be gypped. There has already been a large sale of these spraying appliances in western Canada. In the area I come from enough appliances have been sold to cover half the area with sprays of various kinds during the coming year. These formulae should be checked to see that they come up to certain standards, and information should be issued to the farmers as to their usefulness, or I am afraid somebody will be gypped this summer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the information readily available as I would have had earlier, because this really comes under scientific service. These formulae are checked. As a matter of fact, we have a publication out recommending the farmers to use one of three formulae. That publication can be obtained by anyone. It has already been widely circulated. I think the matter was fully discussed at the weed conference at Regina last January, and it was intimated then that this publication was available and that these checks had been made and that the department was in a position to recommend three different formulae as being effective.


Percy Ellis Wright: I hope that information will be given to all municipal councils if that has not already been done, so that they can give the information to their ratepayers. I think that is the best way of distributing information throughout western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would think all the municipal offices in the west would be either on our mailing list or on the provincial lists. The way the information would go out would be through the provincial governments to their usual mailing lists, which I think cover all the municipal offices.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
21.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $382,400.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I had correspondence with the minister's department last year with

respect to making a grant available for the winter show at Kamloops. I pointed out to the minister at that time that the Vancouver winter fair was not being held-it has not been held for a number of years-and we wondered whether some or all of the grant allotted to that fair could be made available for our winter fair at Kamloops, which is quite a big show. I see nothing here for that purpose. What is the present position?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Kamloops show does not get a grant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not for the winter show?


James Garfield Gardiner: Kamloops is not really entitled to the special grant it gets now, because it is not a B fair. We are not supposed to give a grant to anything but A and B fairs, so that I think we have done very well by Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not see how you can say $900 is doing very well when you are prepared to give $5,000 to Vancouver which does not put on a winter fair at all. I understand that our winter fair is within the classification which would qualify it for a grant. You were prepared to pay $5,000 to Vancouver, which does not put on a winter fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. Our position is that we have made agreements with different agricultural associations and societies covering, say ten years in such places as Vancouver where they have built a special building for fair purposes. During the war years it was not utilized for fair purposes, 'but we had to pay our share of the building costs as it came due. I do not think there is any case of our making a grant where there is not a fair, although there may have been some years when a fair was not held because of special circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point I am making. Here you have an item of $5,000 for Vancouver, which I understand was not paid last year because they did not hold a fair, and when we asked for a grant for the Christmas show in Kamloops we were told no, that the main winter show in British Columbia was supposed to be the Vancouver winter fair, for which there was an appropriation of $5,000. That fair was not held and has not been held since the war. I know the money was not paid last year, but the department took the position that that was the main winter fair in British Columbia and that they were prepared to grant it $5,000. I do not see why you should not make a smaller grant to Kamloops which continues to hold a winter fair.

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: There are three systems of grants. We pay grants to A and B class fairs, and the provincial governments pay to smaller fairs. My understanding is that Kamloops does not qualify for an A or B grant, but for some special reason we made them a grant. So far as I know, it is one of the few places, if not the only one, that get a grant under those circumstances. I think they are quite lucky to get it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a different matter
altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: We could not pay them a grant on the other basis because they do not qualify.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the winter fair?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not make any difference whether Vancouver held its fair or not. Vancouver can qualify if they do hold it, and we set aside $5,000 for that purpose. If they do not hold it we do not pay it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I understand that our Christmas show qualifies.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it qualifies it will get it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, because we were told that the main winter fair in British Columbia was the Vancouver one. The correspondence went like this, that $5,000 had been authorized in the estimates for the Vancouver fair, and the department could not make a second grant available to Kamloops. In other words, Vancouver had the prior position. They did not hold their fair but we held ours, and I do not see why, so long as Vancouver does not hold its fair, we should not qualify for a grant for our Christmas show, leaving out altogether the question whether our spring show qualifies for a grant or not.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are arrangements made right across Canada whereby certain districts get grants for winter fairs. The winter fair in British Columbia has been at Vancouver. There is a possibility that it might be changed from Vancouver to Kamloops, but that change will have to be made before we can pay a grant, and we would have to discontinue paying it to Vancouver. We may decide to do that. Up to the moment we have not decided to do it. I understand that representations have been made to the effect that it ought to be done. If that decision is made, that is what will be done, but until that decision is made we are not entitled to pay the grant to Kamloops.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
2S. Livestock and livestock products, $965,787.
John Alpheus Charlton: Has the minister taken into consideration the suggestion I made some time ago in regard to setting a price for hogs in the old country market under the British contract? That is important, in that, under the contract as stated by the minister, the price would not be set until some time this November or December. That, I contend, is not good enough, because the maximum price guaranteed for 1949, according to his own words, is only $25 a hundred, and with the production of pork going down as it is across Canada, I think the only hope of increasing production is to get a higher guaranteed price.
I suggested on the former occasion that the price should be set two years in advance, that there be a minimum and maximum price, a floor and a ceiling, and that it be reviewed each year. To give examples, I suggested previously a floor at $30 and a ceiling at $35. That is $5 better than the present floor which is guaranteed for 1949, and I believe the farmers would be satisfied to carry on and increase production on a floor near that. The floor would not necessarily be set at $30, but the price would be within a range of $5 between the floor and the ceiling. That should be for two years, and each year the price could be set at $32 or $33 or $34, somewhere within that range. It would give the farmer a better guarantee. Has the minister taken into consideration anything of that kind, and when will the price be set?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not a matter of taking it into consideration. Since 1939 we have been negotiating with the British off and on for many years on these contracts. We did endeavour for some considerable time to have the period increased from one year and were successful in getting it up to two years for a period. We did everything possible last December to have the price set for 1949. There must be two parties to any bargain, and the British absolutely refused to set the price for 1949 any further than to set the floor. I do not know what we can do beyond that. We will negotiate the price as soon as we can persuade the British to sit down with us and discuss it. As a rule, that has been done in the fall, some time after September, and I have some doubts as to whether they will negotiate it before that time this year. It is not a matter of what we want to do; it is a question of what the other parties wish to do in the negotiations.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not setting a good example for forward contract prices, and it is not very promising for the next year's price
Supply-Agriculture

if Britain has refused to go the two years. She wants to leave it until this fall, and we must suppose the price will be lowered considerably compared with what it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do not suppose too much.


John Alpheus Charlton: It only proves that Britain is making sure she will not guarantee more than the world price. That is quite an admission on the minister's part.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not make such an admission, because I said, the last time we were discussing these estimates, that our price was higher than the United States price. Tonight the price in the United States is higher than ours. I do not know where it will be next week and no one else knows. It is going up and down, whereas our price is set. Their price depends on whether there is a strike on or not, and some other factors enter into it as well. I am not in a position to say where it will be by next August or September, but we do know that we have a guaranteed price until the end of December at the present rate, and it is a very high rate. I do not think anyone will dispute that.
I was looking at the records tonight giving our position and the United States position in regard to hogs. On the barley hog ratio ours has been at 19, and back in the period around the beginning of the war and prior to that it stood at 19 or 20. The United States com hog ratio stood at 17 or 18. Their hog ratio stands at the present time at half that, 9. So that when you take into consideration the cost of feed on the United States side, as compared with the price of hogs, and take the cost of feed on this side of the line as compared with hogs, our position is twice as good as the position in the United States, considering that one factor.


John Alpheus Charlton: The price of feed is now practically twice as high over there. But the point is this. I do not care where the price is now. It is the price next year that I am interested in. The farmer is not worrying about the price at the moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: I know.


John Alpheus Charlton: He is worrying about what the price will be next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are worrying about the same thing that we are worrying about, but the other fellow is worrying too.


John Alpheus Charlton: He will not get increased production at that maximum price.


James Garfield Gardiner: He is not asking us to increase it. We have more bacon now to

supply Britain than Britain is prepared to take at the moment. Whether we shall have more in September I do not know.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think the minister does know' if he will admit it. He knows very well. If you continue to do what you have been doing in the last three or four months the contract will be filled by September; but will you continue to carry on until September?
I doubt it very much, and the minister will agree with me.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have already made negotiations which result in more being delivered to Britain than the contract calls for. But what I am saying is that there are more hogs coming onto the market now week by week than the British contract takes; that is in addition to what we are consuming in Canada. We can sell them in the United States at the present time at prices a little better than to Britain, but if we do that we shall have to open the United States market for grain and we shall not be in a better position but in a worse one.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is no chance then of that price being negotiated sooner than November or December this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: From September on.


[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 $6,000, $25,000,
Percy Ellis Wright: I wish to ask the minister a few questions with regard to the marketing of rape seed. What if any exports have there been of rape seed or rape seed oil to the United States or other countries during the past year? I understand that one company is processing rape seed in Canada under contract, and I have been told-I do not know whether it is right-that a certain amount of rape seed oil has been exported. Can the minister give any information on the amounts exported, or the amount of oil exported?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I have not
that information. That really comes under trade and commerce. The oil price or the price for rape seed was announced some time ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as six cents a pound.


Percy Ellis Wright: For the next year?

Supply

Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It is handled under trade and commerce. I wish the hon. member would take it up under those estimates.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: What is the situation with regard to buckwheat? I have a request from a feed man in my riding where he has a car of buckwheat. He has got into contact with all the larger milling companies and they are not in the market for buckwheat. He has been trying to get an export permit to ship this car of buckwheat but has been refused. He has made every effort to dispose of it, but none of the milling companies are interested. Is it possible for him to get an export permit?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would think there would be no difficulty if he is not able to find a market here. I do not think he would have any difficulty in getting an export permit, but he would have to apply to the Department of Trade and Commerce and they in turn would probably refer the matter to us. I have not heard of the case, and I have never heard the question of buckwheat discussed in connection with exports.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Applications have
been made for an export permit, and I was informed that they got in contact with the Department of Agriculture three or four times and were refused as a matter of policy. I cannot understand why, when this man has got in contact with all the milling companies and they are not interested, he should have to lose his car of buckwheat. Here is a letter from the Maple Leaf Milling Company, as one instance. They reply to his letter and say in effect: In reply to your letter of recent date we regret to advise you that we are not in the market for buckwheat at the present time. He has about seven or eight other letters of that kind. Yet the department will not give him an export permit.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will the hon. member bring that to my attention tomorrow, and I will see what I can do. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can the minister give us any idea what the price of Ontario soft wheat will be for this season?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is trade and commerce. I do not like to announce their prices.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is that entirely under trade and commerce?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
SO. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage (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 $1,000,000, No. 409, Department of Reconstruction and Supply), $3,000,000.
Calvert Charlton Miller: This afternoon I was going to ask some additional questions about P.C. 2413, and the minister suggested that they could be brought up under these estimates. Perhaps this is the proper time to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just before the hon. member proceeds, may I answer a note I received from the hon. member for Lake Centre? I have not another copy of the order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he has not a copy?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


John George Diefenbaker: There is not one either in the returns office, so it makes it rather difficult.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not one here. I am not sure whether there is one in my office or not.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I have a small matter to discuss. In reading over the order in council quickly, I noticed that in section 4, subsection (d), the board was given the power to report on any questions relating to specific projects for the utilization or control of common rivers or lake systems. Then, under the following section, or a later section, the recommendation of the board with regard to subsections (c) and (d) of section 4 shall become effective when adopted by order in council. When I read that I was of the opinion that, without much stretching of the wording, or that with any reasonable interpretation of that wording, we might perhaps have some system of control of rampaging rivers, at least the ones that are interprovincial. But I think the minister has answered that today by pretty well saying that it is not so. I should like him either to affirm or to disaffirm that.
While I am talking on these matters, I should like to refer to some of the flood conditions in my own riding. I have just returned from a hasty trip up there to look over the flood situation. [DOT] While it is perhaps not on as big a scale as the British Columbia flooding, about which we heard earlier in the day, yet it is a serious matter.
Supply-Agriculture

So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, on the Assiniboine river, which interests me the most, I must say that on the whole I would not be prepared to criticize what they have done. They have done a reasonable job there and have complied, as far as possible, with the reasonable requests not only of myself but of the members who have previously represented this constituency. There is, however, still more for them to do.
The point I want to talk about today is this. This Assiniboine river rises away up in the Saskatchewan. It is an interprovincial river. Not only that, but the basin of the Assiniboine is a huge one. The Assiniboine river comes down from northeastern Saskatchewan and works in through Manitoba. I think it is joined by the Qu'Appelle before it crosses the Saskatchewan boundary, later by the Souris which is not only interprovincial but also international, and also by the Minne-dosa and other smaller rivers and creeks. From Portage la Prairie on to the Red river, all the water from this tremendous basin, or rather from these basins, has to be funneled through that one river, through which it flows slowly, with a comparatively small drop of about 112 feet from Portage to Winnipeg. The result is that we are faced with these flooding conditions.
It is all very well for the Minister of Public Works to say what he did this afternoon. I have no doubt that he was speaking only upon the opinion of the law officers who advised him. It is all very well for him to say it is not a federal problem at all, but is provincial or municipal. The provincial authorities are equally positive that it is not a provincial matter at all, but that it is a dominion matter. It is cold comfort to the farmers, who have thousands of acres flooded and under water in the Assiniboine basin, to be standing there while two authorities, to both of which they pay taxes, stand aside and attempt to wash their hands of this particular problem. It must be somebody's.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is lots of water.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Yes, there is lots of water for them to wash their hands. It must be somebody's problem. It is not reasonable to say that the municipality of St. Francois Xavier-which is on the east of my riding, and which takes a terrific beating when there is flooding of the Assiniboine; it is a small municipality of about 48,000 acres-is responsible. It is ridiculous to say that it has any financial responsibility for keeping the Assiniboine river under control, when the Assiniboine river comes from Saskatchewan

and just passes through this small municipality; and the Souris river, which I think rises somewhere south of Regina, not only meanders through Saskatchewan and Manitoba but also, I believe, takes a bend into the United States. As I say, it is ridiculous to say that the municipality of St. Francois Xavier has any responsibility there at all. But somebody has. If it had not been for that diking system that is there now, there would have been half a million acres flooded this year in the municipality which is represented by myself and the hon. member for Macdonald.
Whether the matter is dominion or provincial, 1 do not care, so long as some scheme is evolved. But there should be some authority in this country of ours that will make a survey and develop an over-all scheme. I think it should be the dominion. They should make a survey. Then, if the dominion thinks it is a provincial responsibility or the responsibility of several provinces, the dominion should take the initiative and should not expect the farmers who are flooded to run to the municipality, from the municipality to the provincial government, and from the provincial government to the dominion government. There should be an over-all scheme, and it should be worked out by the dominion.
If the Minister of Public Works is correct, and if the law officers who have advised him are correct, well and good. But if there is a divergence of opinion between the law officers of the dominion and the law officers of the province, I say that in all reason and in all common sense the dominion government should submit the whole question to the supreme court for a decision. Then, if we find out that it is a provincial responsibility, the farmers whom I and others here represent, can go to the proper determined authority to get our relief. As the situation is now, we do not know where to go. We are just pushed around from one authority to another. That is the situation not only in my constituency but in every other constituency that is affected by this flooding. There should be a whole dominion-wide scheme, an over-all scheme of control of these rivers. There should be a survey made of these rivers, and I think these rivers which are interprovincial should be the care of the dominion government without any-I was about to use the expression "passing the buck", but I do not think that is fair to the Minister of Public Works. But I think the P.F.R.A.-and that is under the Minister of Agriculture-should make a survey of the Assiniboine river basin, and of the tributaries of the Assiniboine and

Supply-Agriculture
see just what can be done or what ought to be done in the matter of control by a system of dams, diking or something?
It is just a tragedy that this year some of the best farm lands in the Dominion of Canada are under water to a depth of not only a few inches but several inches. It was just a miracle, and also by reason of the fact that the farmers and the citizens worked together day and night for over two weeks, that half a million acres of the best farm lands in this country were not under water. I do not think it is good enough for the government of the Dominion of Canada or the governments of the provinces to be standing by, each trying to evade whatever responsibility there might be, lest they be handicapped by some responsibility which they do not want to assume, and that they should pass the buck from one to another. This question must be determined at once, even if it is necessary to have a reference to the courts to ascertain whether it is a provincial or a dominion matter.
As far as these estimates are concerned, I suggest to the minister that he give some study to the wording of P.C. 2413, which was tabled today, to see if the intent and wording of the order in council and the agreement attached to it are not wide enough to permit some such survey as I have requested to be made, in an attempt to arrive at a permanent cure for all this flood damage that is being caused.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the last matter the hon. gentleman discussed, that is the survey on the Assiniboine river, that survey has been under way for a year and a half. We have already spent $6,000 on it, and we expect it may take another year to complete the survey. But it is being made. One of the proposals is that we put a reservoir in the province of Saskatchewan up near the headwaters of the Assiniboine; and borings are being made there to locate the proper place to put the dam to create the storage in that area necessary to prevent the water from coming down with a rush.
I think one reason that floods have been more prevalent in recent years is the fact that the trees have been pretty well cut in the northern areas. The snows used to go away more slowly when the trees were there, and the water came down more slowly. The trees have now been trimmed off, and the water comes down with a rush. We believe it is possible to correct that condition by building dams and creating storages to let the water come down gradually instead of coming 5849-2884
down with a rush, and that survey is now being made.
It is possible to have surveys of that kind made under this order in council. We were making them before, without the order in council, but this is intended to facilitate that work. The intent of the order is that each province will appoint its chief engineer; we will appoint our chief engineer under P.F.RA.; mines and resources will appoint their chief engineer, and those five men will constitute the board. That board will make a study of the information now available, and we think we have most of the information with respect to water flow and all that sort of thing already on record at the offices in Regina. But if it is not on record, then any one of the provinces or the federal government can ask for further information to be obtained, and it will be obtained by this board. The necessary staffs will be provided; and when we have the complete records with regard to the flow of water in those streams and what might be done with it, recommendations will be made by this board to the governments concerned. It may be that in some cases only the federal government and one provincial government will be concerned, but where all four governments are involved the recommendations will be made to all.
The chief responsibility of the board under this order is to determine how much water we should allow to pass the boundary line from Alberta into Saskatchewan, and how much should be allowed to pass the boundary line from Saskatchewan into Manitoba. It has taken us over a year to have this order in council, as it is now, agreed upon. Last year we had one we thought was satisfactory. We sent it to all three governments and finally persuaded two of them to accept it. The third government, Manitoba, was not prepared to accept it; and perhaps they had some reason for their position. They have muskrat farms in the northern part of the province, which are supplied with water by the big run-off in the spring. In the discussions we took the position that, after all, muskrat farms were not the most important thing; that if we were to control the water in the way suggested by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, namely holding the water back by dams and letting it come down gradually, thus avoiding floods, then the flooding which has taken place in the lower levels may have to take place higher up, for the time being, and the muskrats would have to go up there and have their homes.
Some of those things, I think, will have to give way to the development of the larger idea, that idea being that there is not enough
Supply-Agriculture

water, and that we should not allow it to rush away to Hudson bay in the spring, but should provide storages all back along the route wherever they can be usefully placed, and that we should permit the same amount of water to go through in the twelve-month period, but that it would be spread over the year instead of all going down in two or three months and then there being none at all for another period. That is the idea behind it, and this board is set up for the purpose of recommending to the provincial governments and ourselves what should be done.
After those recommendations come in, it is assumed that the federal government will provide the money for the storages. We do not undertake to provide the money to put in irrigation or to put in power developments, but we undertake to provide money for storages. Once we have decided that a storage can be utilized effectively either by a province or by some local organization which has been set up, or by the municipalities, then we may undertake to build that storage.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Or for the purpose of controlling floods?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I would say it will serve the two purposes at the one time. In most cases it will be to provide power or to provide water for irrigation. For example, if they create a lake on the Saskatchewan river by building a 200-foot dam, that lake will be 145 miles long. It will be 200 feet deep at the dam and some fifty-three feet deep north of Swift Current.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not the intention of the dominion government to expend some sixty-five or sixty-seven million dollars, provided that this dam proves feasible?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure it will spend $66 million. It will spend whatever part of $66 million is necessary if it is once determined to go ahead with the program, and if we have the consent of all the provinces to go ahead with it.


Thomas John Bentley: Then may I ask this question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not too many questions at once.


Thomas John Bentley: I think I had the floor.


James Garfield Gardiner: But I was answering a question asked1 by another hon. member.


Thomas John Bentley: Any single province has the power of veto on this, has it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not now. The order previously drafted provided that any one province would have the power of veto, but that is not this order. That previous order was not signed; it has been changed. The present order does not provide that this board shall make any decisions. It simply makes a recommendation to each province. We did not want it that way, but that was insisted upon by the three provinces. We finally agreed in order to get somewhere. We were a year trying to get them to agree to the other proposal, that the board should make the decision in the matter, but they do not want that. We have agreed to allow recommendations to go to each province and to us; but we are trusting that the provinces will pass the necessary orders in council, when the time comes, in order to make it possible to proceed.


Thomas John Bentley: Then each province still
has a veto?


James Garfield Gardiner: No such thing as a veto is involved, but if they do not pass an order in council nothing will be done.


Thomas John Bentley: In effect, then, they can block it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did I understand the minister to say that the dam to be erected somewhere near Elbow will raise the water at Swift Current or at Saskatchewan Landing to a height of sixty-six feet?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; fifty-three feet. I understand that if a 210 foot darn is built at Elbow, which is the one recommended by the engineers, that will necessitate building a dam 110 feet high along the east side of the Saskatchewan river to prevent the water from going down the Qu'Appelle. Both those dams would have to be built before you could have that supply of water provided in the Saskatchewan river; and I imagine the water would be 200 feet deep at the dam.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister did not get my question. He says the dam to be erected somewhere near Elbow will be 200 feet high.
I understood him to say that would raise the water in the vicinity of Saskatchewan Landing north of Swift Current to a depth of about sixty feet.


James Garfield Gardiner: To fifty-three feet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One further question; that would wipe out the possibility of a low-level bridge being erected there.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that what they are proposing to do now is to put in the

Supply-Agriculture
abutments for a 53-foot bridge, but to build the low-level bridge. That is the situation at the present time, so far as I know it. A 14-foot increase in water would result from a different dam altogether from the one at Elbow. There have been a number of investigations made, and if a dam different from the Elbow dam were built, then it might be possible that the lake would only create an increase in water level of fourteen feet. I understand that the province intends to go ahead and put in abutments which will carry the high-level bridge. But they intend at the present time to build a low-level bridge.
The advice that they have and that we have is that the steel structure put on the low level can be jacked up to the higher level, and the full abutments are built to carry that higher level bridge, if it is ever necessary in the future. Then they would have to add approaches at both sides back to the higher level of the river banks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The suggestion was made a while ago to build another dam at Saskatchewan Landing, which would mean a lower dam at Riverhurst or Elbow, and then, have that new dam at Saskatchewan Landing.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is only one dam being discussed at the present time, and that is the 210-foot dam at Elbow, which would necessitate a second dam on the east side, because the bank of the river opposite the Qu'Appelle is only ninety feet high. If you build a dam 210 feet high, you have to build another dam along the east side of the river to prevent all the water from going down and flooding out all the people in Manitoba. So there has to be a great deal of construction. The plan has been suggested which will take a considerable amount of money, if proceeded with, and some time to build.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Has the minister anything to indicate from his records where the proposed dam would be on the Assiniboine river?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have not completed the borings. But it is somewhere up in the Saskatchewan area, in the vicinity of Kam-sack.


Calvert Charlton Miller: It would have to be above the Minnedosa and the Souris.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask some questions respecting the extension of this act to British Columbia. Just for the information of the minister and of the committee, I should like to review what I was going to describe as changes in policy which have taken place thus
far. This was urged as a specific measure by myself and by others in 1946.


William Henry Golding: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: That could be discussed under item 36, the British Columbia item.


William Henry Golding: Order. This
item deals with:
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage (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 $1,000,000, No. 409, Department of Reconstruction and Supply).


Edmund Davie Fulton: This item deals with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. We have been urging for some years that it be extended to British Columbia. The minister said this afternoon he would prefer that we delay discussion until we reached the P.F.R.A. item.


James Garfield Gardiner: But this is not that item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The item the minister has in mind is item 38.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, item 36.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, item 36. But that deals only with specific projects in British Columbia. It refers to isolated projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: But this item does not deal with British Columbia at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it does deal with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that does not apply to British Columbia. In the discussion of the British Columbia item we can discuss everything that can be done in that province under that item. We cannot have prairie farm rehabilitation in British Columbia. You can have something done in the mountains, or in some other place, but it would not be prairie farm rehabilitation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Last year the minister said he was in favour of an extension of the principle of the act to British Columbia.


James Garfield Gardiner: And we have it in this
other item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, it is not. The other item deals with specific projects.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not a nickel
in this item for British Columbia-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And my point is that there should be.
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: -and there cannot be any money put into it for British Columbia. Therefore we cannot discuss British Columbia under this item. But you can discuss anything you like in connection with British Columbia water development under item 36.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is being very generous, but he does not actually control the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: The rules control the committee.


William Henry Golding: The committee would make more progress if it dealt with the items as they come along. This item has nothing to do with British Columbia. The hon. member will have an opportunity to deal with British Columbia later on.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, surely there is no other place where questions as to whether or not the act is being applied in British Columbia can be asked.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am rising to a point of order.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member knows very well that it is the rule in committee to deal specifically with the item under discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not for the province of British Columbia.


William Henry Golding: Surely to goodness the hon. member will not argue that this is the proper place to discuss the problem in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I read in item 30 that it refers to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage.


William Henry Golding: Go on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And there is a note to say that it does not apply to two specific projects. But the general item refers to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage.


William Henry Golding: As the hon. member knows, the point he now raises does not come in here. Is he suggesting that British Columbia comes under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, with respect, I do not. The point I am trying to make is that we should have an extension of the principle of the act, and water storage, in British Columbia.


William Henry Golding: Now the hon. member is saying that a principle is involved, which is not to be dealt with under a par-
ticular item. The item itself may be dealt with specifically.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The term "water storage" is sufficiently broad.


William Henry Golding: We are not going to make progress if we keep on arguing about the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this matter has recently been discussed in British Columbia, and the question of the extension of P.F.R.A. to British Columbia was specifically referred to in the last few days by the right hon. gentleman.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it was not.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did the discussing, and I know what I discussed. I discussed item 36.


William Henry Golding: I rule that under this item the discussion of British Columbia problems should not be continued. We shall make progress if we proceed as we should proceed.


Mr. BURTON:: I have a number of questions I should like to ask, which certainly do come under this item. First, may I remind the minister that during the past few years I have been quiet and considerate in asking for any information concerning the matter I have in mind. But, after the tremendous snowfall we had during the past winter, and the tremendous amount of run-off water, I should like to inquire from the minister as to how much water is impounded in Wolverine creek by the dam built by P.F.R.A. southeast of Humboldt in the summer of 1943. Have any repairs been made to this dam in the past year, and, if so, what was the total cost of such repairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: The dam at Wolverine creek is really an underground dam.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a new kind of dam.


An hon. MEMBER:: An election dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is a sensible kind of dam. The underground structure is of gravel and no better water in the world can be had than that stored in gravel. Steel piling is driven down at the end of the area in which the water is stored. The run-off in the spring soaks into that and is stored. A total of $479.75 was spent last year on repairs.


Joseph William Burton: For what purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure of the purpose, but I presume it had something to do with the structure. I imagine my hon.

Supply-Agriculture_____________
friend knows more about it than I do, because he lives close to it.


Joseph William Burton: My information is that a wooden overflow structure was burned by a prairie fire. I do not know just to what extent the department has repaired it, but in repairing it I hope they see that this dam which is supposed to hold water will not be consumed by a prairie fire.


An hon. MEMBER:: Firewater.


Joseph William Burton: I should like to find out how much water is now impounded by this dam. Last year and the year before, I made special trips out to the dam, one time right after there had been a cloudburst in Humboldt which had raised the level in Burton lake near my farm to about ten feet. When I got to the dam there was not enough water to permit a respectable duck to take a bath. I want to know whether this dam is going to hold any water at any time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think if my hon. friend took a jump down one of the wells down there he would find that there is more water in it than there ever was before.


Joseph William Burton: I hope the minister is not suggesting that I go down a well?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was never intended to be a duck pond. It is on the same principle as that by which water is supplied to Moose Jaw. Water comes down from the Saskatchewan river seventy miles away, it is pumped into the sands, and then Moose Jaw pumps it out again and takes it eighteen miles into the city. This dam is some six or seven miles from Humboldt and there is a graveled underground area in which water is supposed to be stored. So far as I know, Humboldt has never attempted to pump water out of it and, until they do, they will not know whether there is any water there. I presume there is water there because the dam is properly constructed.


Joseph William Burton: The town of Humboldt and their advisers in the matter of water supply have been hesitant to undertake the placing of a pipeline to that dam, because until this spring there has not been sufficient water to warrant the expense. The minister's statement that this dam was constructed with the idea of checking the flow of water underneath the surface is understandable-


James Garfield Gardiner: Is correct.


Joseph William Burton: Then why was it necessary to construct a dam forty or fifty feet in height if it was intended to hold water flowing underneath the ground? The engineers of the
department must have had some idea that sufficient water would back up behind the so-called underground dam to raise water on the surface against the dam. The minister or his officials can find out much easier than I what water is impounded by this dam. There was a tremendous amount of run-off water this spring.


James Garfield Gardiner: Both the hon. member and I will be out there before very long and we can look at it.


Joseph William Burton: I hope the minister will so arrange his trip that I can have the pleasure of driving him to that dam. I assure him that I will not invite him to jump in a well because I know we can get along very well without that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What amount will be spent this year in British Columbia under P.F.R.A.?


James Garfield Gardiner: None under P.F.R.A. on construction. The money that is being spent in British Columbia is being provided from two sources. One is the Veterans Land Act. A considerable amount of work is being done under that act in different parts of British Columbia and our engineers are doing the work. There will be other expenditures in British Columbia made under item 36, which has to do with the Lillooet river. I will ask the hon. member to deal with this matter when we reach that item. Then I would point out that item 38 has to do with land reclamation and there will be expenditures under that.


Mr. ADAMSON:: In view of the minister's earlier remarks that the. cause of all this flooding we have had is the destruction of forest cover to the north, I have a question to ask which has a particular bearing upon northern Ontario. What steps, if any, are being taken to replace the forest cover?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the work being done to replace forests I presume is done by the provinces because the forests belong to the provinces.


Victor Quelch: If one province refuses to adopt the recommendation of the water board with respect to the allocation of waters of a specific river, are we to understand that all development of water storage will be held up until such time as the recommendation is adopted?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are spending the money and that is exactly the point of view I took with the provinces. I said, "If you are going to delay expenditures I do not think anyone here is going to insist that we spend money in the province". This is doing work
Supply-A griculture

which, according to the discussions we have been having, is really the constitutional responsibility of the province. We are prepared to drop that and do the job up to a point. So far as we are concerned in this department, we have our troubles in getting money. We have to discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance, with the whole council and with all those who are interested in the matter. We have our own difficulties the same as any department has in getting the amount of money which we think ought to be expended. If the provinces are going to say, "We do not want it expended," that will make it more difficult. But I think you will find as you go along that the provinces will expedite it. I do not think there is any occasion for setting up hypothetical cases and saying they will not.


René Jutras: Has the minister had any communication with Manitoba with regard to work being done in the southeastern part of that province? The minister will recall that last year and the year before, I pointed out that there was a great deal of work to be done in the southeast corner of the province, east of the Red river. This area has two or three very large swamps which overflow every spring. There are only two small rivers, the Rat and the Roseau, to take the water away and their banks are not high enough to take care of the flow, so that there is an overflow over the country generally every spring, which makes it very difficult for people to settle there. They have to restrict their settlement to the higher places.
In the past the argument brought forward by officials of P.F.R.A. was that it was more a problem of drainage than irrigation. However, an engineer has come out with the suggestion that probably one storage dam located somewhere on the Roseau about the centre of the area would hold back the main waters from the swamp, and the rivers would then be able to take care of the rest of the drainage. There are several thousand acres that could be settled and cultivated and put to real use in that area with proper drainage. I commend this project to the minister. I was given to understand that he had discussed it on many occasions with the officials. Is the minister in a position to make a statement on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present situation is that the area east of the Red river in Manitoba is in much the same position as all other parts of Canada outside the P.F.R.A. area, which is the Palliser triangle, and the area east of the Red river is not in that triangle.


René Jutras: I was referring to the eastern side of the Red river but only to the extent

of five or six townships east of the Red river. As I understand the present regulations, most of this area would come under P.F.R.A. because it includes the water basin of the Red river, and the area I am speaking of is part of the water basin of the Red river. I was given to understand that by the official.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is in the P.F.R.A. area, of which I have some doubts, it would come under P.F.R.A.; but, if not, it would have to come under another item which provides a special fund for doing works in different parts of Canada.


René Jutras: I am satisfied that it comes under P.F.R.A.


James Garfield Gardiner: If so, it could be considered.


René Jutras: Has the minister had any communication from the province about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not that I recall.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to bring up a matter which seriously affects Dauphin constituency. I assure the minister that it will not require any subterranean dams or anything of that kind. The minister will recall that about a year ago-


William Henry Golding: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would give way to the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, who was out when we were dealing with item 29 and wanted to ask a question on it?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Earle Drope: Thank you very much, and I also wish to thank -the Chairman for his courtesy and to assure him that we make good progress when he is in the chair.
My question was in regard to the marketing of cheese. Is it the intention to requisition cheese for overseas shipment this year? We were interested in the announcement the minister made this afternoon concerning that other great dairy product, butter. It appears doubtful whether this country will have enough butter next winter, with the low price announced today, which I think will have a tendency to discourage production. We have to bear in mind that our population is increasing in this country, and it is questionable whether we can go on exporting dairy products fox any length of time and still have enough left for the home market. We know the tremendous shortage of butter that we experienced last winter and the great demand by consumers for a subsidy. I would hope that the policy of the government will not lead us into that position another year. At

Supply-Agriculture
least the ceiling should be taken off butter at the present time. Would the minister make a statement on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to cheese, the price in the contract is thirty cents. It sets a floor under cheese. The requisitioning of cheese depends on two or three things. One is whether we can buy cheese from week to week as we go along in order to fill the British contract. Another one is whether we shall be able to get funds to be able to pay for all the cheese in the month or two toward the end of the season. In my opinion we ought to be able to get our proportion of the cheese every week during the summer, and I have expressed that opinion to the cheese producers in the last two or three days. They are discussing that matter with the possibility of bringing it about, so far as the cheese producers of Quebec and Ontario are concerned.
I am not in a position to say anything more until those discussions are completed. It is not our desire to requisition cheese, and I hope we shall not have to do so. We hope to get the cheese as we go along, rather than have to take it in the last month or two. I think that is advisable. Nor do the British want it all in the last month or two, but week by week, and that is the way we ought to deliver it. But if we cannot deliver it in that way we shall have to make some different arrangements from what we have now.
We have not lowered the ceiling on butter. We have simply said that if it goes down to fifty-eight cents we are prepared to buy it. But butter has not gone down to fifty-eight cents, and I do not know whether it will or not. We have not lowered the ceiling. It is still sixty-seven cents. The papers said seventy-three cents, but there is no such ceiling on butter. The ceiling is a wholesale ceiling of sixty-seven cents, and the fifty-eight cents is in relation to sixty-seven cents, and not in relation to seventy-three cents. The selling price, as everyone knows, is sixty-seven cents, basis Montreal, and the price at which we shall buy, if it goes down to that, is fifty-eight cents.


Robert Earle Drope: Does the minister think we shall get enough butter to supply the consumer demand next winter at that price?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not sure that it will go down to that price. The price today is sixty-three cents. It has gone down from sixty-seven to sixty-three cents within the last three or four days. Whether it will go lower I do not know, but we are hopeful that butter will come in at these prices. As a matter of fact, the greater part of the surplus butter
comes from places where cheese is not produced.
Item stands.
Progress reported.	,



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we intend to proceed with the second reading of Bill 328, which was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture today concerning the reclamation and development of marshlands in the maritime provinces. Then we shall move that the house go into committee of supply and call two new departments. We shall not discuss the new items but proceed with the estimates of agriculture, transport, national health and welfare, and public works.


Calvert Charlton Miller: What are the two new departments?


Alphonse Fournier: Mines and
Resources, and Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
15. Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $3,372,320.
Health of animals-
17.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $2,611,508.
18.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $507,845.
19.	Live stock and poultry, $1,022,390.
Plant products-
20.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $31,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $963,764.
21.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $382,400.
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $43,500.
Marketing service-
23.	Marketing service administration, $138,771.
24.	Agricultural economics, $341,535.
25.	Dairy products, $547,244.
26.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $730,494.
27.	Fruits, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $823,000.
28.	Live stock and livestock products, $965,787.
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 $6,000, $25,000.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, May 31,1948