Hear, hear.

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

Many people might have expected, when the questions were being asked this morning, that the Prime Minister might have risen and tried to play some politics over this project-as has been done since last November. I believe that when people in the country read his remarks they will be convinced that he replied with what he believed to be honest facts that he had before him, and in no way can there be any suggestion about his playing politics.

Mr. Gardiner:

I would like to ask my hon. friend if he would not add that the conclusion he would draw from hearing the Prime Minister speak on this subject today, or on any occasion when he has spoken of it, is that he has been trying to leave the impression that he is very friendly to it.

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

I can endorse that statement wholeheartedly. On every occasion upon which I have heard him speak of the project, he has taken that stand, that if the cost of this project was in line with the benefits that may accrue, he was prepared to support it. In his statement this morning he said that we must realize that it is the moneys of the people of Canada that must be provided to take care of the cost of this project. He must be convinced that it is the right thing to do before he can endorse it.

Now, I would be prepared to endorse it when I am convinced that it is the proper thing to do. Statements have been put on the record which would indicate that there have been promises made in other parts of Canada by members of this House of Commons. These promises might be helpful at election time. They are, however, somewhat in the same position as the dog who was reaching for the shadow and lost the bone; they might be more harmful in other parts of Canada. There is little doubt in my mind that there will be quotations from this debate at election time in the maritime provinces. I am quite sure that there will be. In other words, people would indicate, and they would have the facts before them, that we in this House of Commons were ready to go ahead with this project without all the information

Supply-Agriculture

that might be necessary before a start could be made. I believe such a statement was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that if we were all convinced it was a sound investment we would all endorse it.

The same hon. member suggested a short time ago that a further amount should be provided in the supplementary estimates to get this project under way immediately. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I could not endorse that. I have read the report of the South Saskatchewan commission, and from the information I have been able to obtain from other sources I could not support this project now. In advocating that there should be an amount put in the supplementary estimates now to get this project going just as soon as possible, the hon. member fails to understand the position in which he is placing other members of the House of Commons from other parts of this country.

Before I take my seat, I want to say again that I believe the statement made this morning by the Prime Minister was the statement of an honest and sincere man. The people of this country will weigh that statement very carefully. I am sure they will endorse the stand he has taken and will be prepared to wait until all the necessary information is available before a decision is made. I do believe that when that time comes, if it is decided that we should go ahead with the project, it will have the support of the maritime members, the western members and the members from central Canada.

Mr. Gardiner:

May I lay on the table the documents that were requested by the member for Melfort? I am suggesting that we put in the order in council as well as the agreement. I cannot place these documents on the table until the Speaker is in the chair, but in any case I shall send them over and the hon. member can look at them and see that they are placed on the table.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

What is the nature of the documents?

Mr. Gardiner:

I want to add this, and I do not do so in any political sense whatever. I have been in political life for 40 years, and I have been working with a lot of people in that time. I want to say to the members of this house and to the people of Canada in general, and the western people in particular, that I have never worked with anyone in whom I would have greater faith, if we presented our case in a suitable manner, than the Prime Minister. I know he would be friendly and helpful to it. I do not want anyone to think that any discussions I have had with him have left any other impression with me than that if we ever had anyone at the head of the government who would be

friendly to a proposal of that kind, it is the present Prime Minister. If we put our case properly, and if we have as good a case as some people think we have or even as good a case as I think we have, I do not think we need to be making all these pessimistic prophecies concerning what is going to happen to it in the future.

Mr. Knight:

I think, Mr. Chairman, that everything has been said about this dam that possibly could be said. It is for that reason that 1 shall occupy only a moment or two in endorsing what has been said by my colleagues the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Assiniboia. I would say that the new and significant thing that has taken place today has been the statement by the Prime Minister. I agree with one hon. member who has said it was an honest, forthright statement, and as such I welcome it. But it means that we in Saskatchewan now know, as from this morning, that we are to be disappointed in connection with the matter of construction for this year.

I have lived, of course, in the city of Saskatoon for some time. I am not, in the ordinary sense, a rural member although I have a good deal of rural territory in my constituency, which I am told I am to lose in this redistribution. I need not point out to hon. members in this house that any city in western Canada is dependent for its prosperity upon the prosperity of all those rural workers and farmers who are contiguous to it. I believe, therefore, it is very much my business, as the representative of the centre of a great farming community, to say my few words here today in support of what has already been said for the building of this dam.

I was going to say a word about the minister's last statement concerning his 40 years in politics. I was going perhaps to comment upon what history will say about the effect of that intervention of the minister upon the politics of Saskatchewan, but I think I shall leave them for a future occasion. I want to say that I am very disappointed that nothing will be done this year, according to the Prime Minister's statement, and I take it at its face value. With that, sir, I shall leave it for this time.

Mr. Wright:

I do not want to allow this item to pass without paying a compliment to the work of P.F.R.A. in Saskatchewan. I believe that they have done excellent work in that province over the past few years. We may have disagreed about some minor details, but certainly the over-all work done by P.F.R.A. has been of immense benefit to the Palliser triangle and even outside the

Palliser triangle. That this work has been of benefit is indicated by the fact that all parts of western Canada are endeavouring to have the P.F.R.A. extended. I represent an area of the province which has never benefited from P.F.R.A. to any great extent. Over the years I have had numbers of letters from municipalities and individuals asking that their particular area be included in the P.F.R.A. area.

I have in my hand the submission to the government by the farmers' unions of western Canada. In that they state:

We would also urge favourable consideration by this government in extending the benefits of P.F.R.A. to other prairie areas, including the Peace river block.

I think that not only should the P.F.R.A. be extended to the rest of the prairie provinces, but perhaps it should be extended to the whole of Canada. The conservation program that has been carried out by P.F.R.A. in the area in which it has operated is something that could be duplicated-perhaps not in exactly the same manner because it has operated in the drought area-in the rest of Canada. What consideration is the government giving to extending the P.F.R.A. to other areas in the dominion?

Mr. Gardiner:

Before answering the last question I want to thank the hon. member for the finest eulogy that I have ever had since I have been in public life. I have been administering P.F.R.A. and selecting the staffs now for 17 years, and there is not a single policy that they have followed that I did not either originate or pass upon by putting my signature to the suggestions of my officials. Therefore, I take it that an expression of appreciation of the kind that we have just heard, from the source from which it has come, is one of those things which one appreciates as he goes through public life. I want to express my appreciation of those remarks, more particularly since they will be on Hansard.

Mr. Knowles:

And they will be on every telephone pole.

Mr. Gardiner:

Having said that, I would say to him that P.F.R.A. was set up as a program to rehabilitate the area known as the Palliser triangle, the area that I was indicating on the map a few moments ago. As has been stated, a good job has been done there by my officials, and people outside think that we ought to extend it to other parts of western Canada at least, and some people believe it ought to be extended to all of Canada. Again I would not have any objection to that. Back in 1943 a committee of the house sat on the matter, examined into it and made a recommendation

Supply-Agriculture

that that be done. The main reason why it has not been done up to the present is that it was thought advisable to take all the money that we could obtain for the time being and deal with the problem which we started out to deal with. I am sure that as soon as we can get through dealing with the South Saskatchewan river dam and have it at the stage one way or other where we can say it is going to be done or it is not, and so soon as we add to that the consideration of the Red Deer project, which is another that is very close to the hearts of quite a few members sitting on the other side as well as some sitting on this side of the house, when we have dealt with these- these are the last two large projects that have been passed upon by P.F.R.A. engineers-when we get to that point, I have no doubt that consideration will be given to the question as to whether we are to extend the act into further activities elsewhere; but for the time being it is not the intention of the government to put through legislation extending it.

Mr. Wright:

I hesitate to rise again, but I think the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture is very typical. He takes all the praise to himself that I was giving to the officials who had carried out the program.

Mr. Gardiner:

You did not know whom you were praising.

Mr. Wright:

I can assure him that I was praising the officials who carried out the conservation program. With respect to the policy of P.F.R.A., I want to say this. I am one who does not believe in not giving credit where credit is due.

Mr. McCusker:

Don't take it back.

Mr. Wright:

That is exactly what I was doing; I was giving credit to the officials for the way in which this program was carried out.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I am not going to enter into this competition for credit, although P.F.R.A. was set up by the Bennett government. But as between the minister and the hon. member for Melfort, that question has been determined. I should like to ask the minister one question which has to do with the expenditures under P.F.R.A., in connection with investigational work, and so forth, on the South Saskatchewan project back in 1949, and I want to have the record brought up to date. In 1949 a question was asked in the house as follows, as reported at page 826 of Hansard:

What amount of money was spent prior to March 31, 1948, by P.F.R.A. in connection with investigational work on the South Saskatchewan project?

What amount of money was spent from April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1949, . . .

Supply-Agriculture

What amount has been spent or is actually committed to be spent April 1, 1949, to September 30, 1949 . . .

So that the record will be complete, the answer as to the amount of money spent prior to March 31, 1948, in connection with the work is $296,447.87. The amount spent between April 1, 1948, and March 31, 1949, was $143,212.76; the amount spent between April 1, 1949, and September 30, 1949, was $634,308.25.

What has been spent each year since, including 1949 to date, on this project?

Mr. Gardiner:

I am sorry I am not able to give it year by year. The total amount spent on the South Saskatchewan river project from 1935 to 1951 is $1,733,318; and from 1951 to 1952 the total is $510,144. The grand total is $2,243,462. But in view of the discussion that took place this morning I should point out that in the Hansard which'-*

Mr. Diefenbaker:

The minister did not give the amount for 1952-53.