Mr. Blackmore:

Just before the item carries I should like to thank the minister for the excellent review he has given of the whole system of irrigation projects and their resulting use which will benefit the whole country. The dominion government is to be highly commended for this attack on the Palliser triangle, which is Canada's problem.

I think there might be just one point which should be emphasized finally and it is this. In my opening remarks I said and the member for Peace River said that we in Canada could not escape the fact that settlement of the Palliser triangle between 1900 and 1915 by the federal authorities then in charge of Canada incurred for Canada as a whole a responsibility to the provinces or to the administrations that were going to be under the necessity of assuming responsibility for the administra-55704-250

Supply-Agriculture

tion of the local affairs of the provinces that were to be formed from that area.

May I just review what I said the other day. It was well known from the days of Captain John Palliser in 1857 to 1860, by everyone who had a right to claim to be well informed, that the Palliser triangle area was not suitable for settlement by people intending to farm. It was acceptable only as ranching country where herds could be moved from place to place. For people who were settling down to live on the land it was absolutely unsuitable because of the altogether unpredictable nature of the rainfall in that area. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman, those in parliament then advocated bringing in settlers and placing them in that area.

What was the reason for wanting settlers there? There were three reasons. The first was that the settlers would buy goods many of which would be brought in from the United States and on which they would pay duty, that duty constituting revenue for the federal government at Ottawa. Second, those people on the land would buy goods that would be produced in eastern Canada, and consequently they would provide a market for the goods of eastern Canada. Third, the bringing of those goods from eastern Canada would give the railroads business.

Although I have not the quotations before me, and I do not think it would be fitting at this late hour to read them, it is quite clear and it can easily be shown from the Hansard record of those days that those were the objects which were in the minds of the men who instituted the immigration policies under which settlers were placed in that area. Obviously then the main consideration in the minds of those men was the well-being of central Canada. I am not laying any blame on anybody, and I believe those men were wise notwithstanding the ultimate cost of the policies to the provinces concerned, but is it not about time to make up to the provinces that came to have the responsibility of governing those areas, the losses inflicted on them thereby?

There is one other thing. Really there are many things, but I do not wish to hold the house up long. The one thing is that I am very anxious that the people of Canada should get to realize from those of us who have grown up there what the facts are. Other members of the house have a right to look to us for information about that area, just as we have a right to look to the hon. member for Charlotte and the other splendid people from the maritimes for information about those provinces. If we do not tell them we are remiss in our duty.

Supply-Agriculture

So let me point this out. When the time came for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway across the nation, the obvious place to run the railway would have been up through what we call the "good" areas in the north; the bushland, where crops are almost certainly assured. That route was shorter; that route was bound to be more profitable; yet it was deemed advisable to run the C.P.R. down along the southern border where it now is, right through this Palliser triangle where there would only be a meagre opportunity for the C.P.R. to make a profitable business out of its activities. Well, what was the result? The tendency was to bring the settlement in the prairie provinces down into that Palliser triangle. Once the settlers were there, there was a responsibility for providing them with roads, schools, and all manner of social services. That responsibility had to be assumed by the provincial governments. It had to be assumed in areas where there was likely to be a crop failure any year. It was wise to run the railway down along the southern portion. Why? Because the United States railways were beginning to show a disposition to tap into Canada with their lines. Manifestly that was not in the best interests of Canada nationally. But let us remember the fact that the railroad was put there and it indirectly placed an additional financial responsibility of considerable magnitude on the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Now when we contemplate the cost of building this dam and who is going to pay it, shall we say that we should require those provinces, and Saskatchewan in particular, to pay the full half of the cost of installing that dam? Can we look upon that as being equitable? I fail to see how we can.

There is another important matter, Mr. Chairman, that has a bearing on this whole thing. When the time came for the C.P.R. to be paid for building the railroad across Canada, paid with gifts of land, where was the land selected? It was selected in such a way that it scattered the population of Saskatchewan and Alberta all over these areas making it much more expensive to build roads to serve the people, to build telephone lines, to provide school facilities, and later much more expensive to provide health facilities. These two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have found it necessary for example to establish travelling clinics to bring medical aid to the people in more remote areas of the provinces. All those things have constituted a tremendous disproportionate financial drain on the resources of those two provinces. Alberta by good fortune, because of the resources she has, has been placed in a better position financially than Saskatchewan. In

my judgment Saskatchewan has done the very best she could with the resources at her disposal. The Minister of Agriculture knows, better than any other person in Canada, how meagre those financial resources are compared with the tremendous responsibilities that rest upon the government of Saskatchewan. I believe the minister will bear me out in that.

I thought it well to make those three or four comments before closing, just to reinforce what the hon. member for Peace River said. I shall back the member for Peace River every inch of the way. I too do not believe that it is in any degree fair to the people of Saskatchewan to ask them to assume half the cost of building this great irrigation project.

I should like also to express appreciation to all the members who have participated in this debate. I believe that as a result of this debate it will be made easier for the minister to get the support from all over Canada which he ought to have. As a result of bringing together the support from all of Canada, we shall be able to get this great project completed at an early date and put what we might call the capstone on these irrigation projects as well. This would show our intention, as a nation, to reimburse to some extent at least the people who have settled in that area of the Palliser triangle.

Mr. Fulton:

On item 47 I should like to ask the minister if he would answer today a question I asked him yesterday with respect to the possibility of extending to British Columbia the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, on a basis which would make it of general application to the province. Yesterday we reviewed briefly some of the earlier discussions, and the minister said it had been in his mind for a number of years to introduce legislation which would have that effect but that for various reasons it had been postponed from time to time. I asked him yesterday if he would give us a word about the relationship between the priority that must be given to defence requirements, and the possibility of introducing legislation.

In passing the minister referred to a very similar situation tonight when he mentioned an editorial which apparently alleged that the reason for deferring the Saskatchewan river project was because of the greater priority of defence requirements. They are obviously closely related subjects, and I

wonder if the minister could give us a general word on that aspect of it.

Mr. Gardiner:

There have been two reasons why the suggestion has been postponed from time to time. One had to do with provincial financial arrangements, and the other had to do with defence expenditures. It has not been considered wise to proceed with larger expenditure relationships with the provinces at this time. The idea has not been turned down; it has been postponed for discussion later.

Mr. Fulton:

There are one or two particular questions I should like to ask the minister with respect to British Columbia, just before leaving the general subject. As the minister knows, British Columbia in general has a great interest in the development within the Fraser river system of a general program of flood control, irrigation and power development. I refer again, merely in a general way, to the study which is now going forward there, and which I believe is under the over-all supervision of the Minister of Public Works. Prairie farm rehabilitation engineers are taking part in the study, so I should like to ask the minister whether it is contemplated that eventually that administration will take over the federal side of whatever project may be put forward. It seems to me it is very much the same sort of thing that is contemplated with respect to the South Saskatchewan, though if I may take the liberty of saying so I think the potentialities in that area are as great as if not greater than the other.

Mr. Gardiner:

The proposal that is to be made is one, of course, which would have to wait for legislation such as that to which I referred. Under the constitution as it is now the responsibility is upon the province, whether it is British Columbia or any other province, for that kind of thing. Until we have legislation covering it, it is not likely that we would go into the province and take part in that development. The Department of Public Works put up the diking, and it is not the usual thing to expect to have both diking and irrigation in the same area. The Fraser river valley is fairly well watered. It is perhaps the highest rainfall area we have in any section of Canada. Talk of irrigation in that same district is rather difficult to promote here.

Mr. Fulton:

Evidently I have not made myself clear to the minister. The Fraser river, as he knows, goes through two entirely different areas. In the interior or dry belt area where the problem is irrigation, the river is confined to a narrow channel with large areas containing many thousands of acres 55704-250i

Supp ly-A griculture

of bench lands anywhere from 100 to perhaps 400 feet above the actual river itself. The problem is raising the water by pumping, which requires the cheap power to which I have referred, so the water can be used to irrigate the bench lands in the upper stretches of the river and its tributaries, the Thompson and various other rivers. The farm lands or flat lands to which the minister has referred are found only in the lower reaches of the Fraser. My question is related to the study which is going forward under an organization known as the dominion-provincial board, Fraser river basin, which is surveying the whole stream and studying the possibilities of a joint power, irrigation and flood control project.

What I wanted to know was, what is the real interest of the prairie farm rehabilitation people in that work? They have engineers who are participating in that study. I have expressed the hope, and I repeat it here now, that eventually a real impetus would be given to working out a project which would provide for the three things, power development, flood control and irrigation. I am asking the minister whether there is any concrete proposal or program in his mind or the mind of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration in that regard?

Mr. Abbolt:

Eleven o'clock.

Mr. Fulton:

If the minister desires, he can answer that on Monday.

Mr. Gardiner:

This item is for a small amount. It is not nearly large enough to cover any such proposal as is made. This small amount is being used in an experimental way. We are going into certain valleys and doing certain works with regard to rather small projects, but if we were going to do anything as extensive as is suggested in the remarks made there would have to be a much larger vote than this. So I say that, irrespective of what investigation we make into the possibilities at present, I think that kind of development-that is, any larger development-would have to await other legislation which would cover not only that area but British Columbia and other provinces as well.

The Chairman:

Shall this item carry?

Carried.

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Chairman, I had one or

two other questions to ask.

The Chairman:

Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?

Yes.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Business of the House REDISTRIBUTION

Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, may I revert to motions in order to table the fourth and fifth reports of the special committee appointed to consider the results of the census of 1951 and the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker:

Is it agreed?

Agreed.