Frederick William GERSHAW

GERSHAW, The Hon. Frederick William, M.D., C.M.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Medicine Hat (Alberta)
Birth Date
April 11, 1883
Deceased Date
June 26, 1968
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_Gershaw
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=9af5baa0-61a7-412e-9dc2-ec6e56f68e3e&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician

Parliamentary Career

October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
LIB
  Medicine Hat (Alberta)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Medicine Hat (Alberta)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Medicine Hat (Alberta)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Medicine Hat (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 58)


April 11, 1945

Mr. GERSHAW:

The last speaker told

of the difficulties in his district in getting permits for trucks. The condition is general, and in Alberta where the needs have been great and the distances considerable we, too, have had much trouble in getting these permits. But the people of Canada realize that rationing is sharing and they have loyally submitted to restrictions because they know what a difficult position the department is in.

There are few men in Canada who have as great a knowledge of industrial construction and of industry generally as the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). He has had a difficult job and has rendered great service as Minister of Munitions and Supply. I believe the whole reconstruction problem of converting the industry of Canada from a war-time to a peace-time basis will be safe in his hands.

I would call the attention of the committee to one post-war activity which I believe will bring rich results toi the people of Canada. I refer to the irrigation problem in the dried-out districts of southern Alberta. We know of two projects there which have been surveyed and re-surveyed. At a cost of $20 million spread over six or seven years they could be completed. Four hundred thousand acres of land which is now of no use could be made productive and it would add greatly to the output of products that are needed in Canada. I refer to- the Redcliff-Ronelane and St. Mary projects.

It is said that in Canada we have too much wheat and too little meat, but the reclaiming

of this area would make it possible for the farmers who might locate there to produce meat, vegetables and fruits which are needed in the diet of the average Canadian. Canadians do not have sufficient dairy products, fruits and vegetables. They have not sufficient meat or eggs, and the reclaiming of this area would do much to help in the nutrition of Canadians. Sugar factories could also be constructed, as well as canning factories, quick freezing plants, so that these fruits and vegetables co-uld be processed and used the whole year round. Moreover, the reclaiming of this area has been proven to be feasible. There are already practical schemes in operation in both districts and the water supply is available. If the projects could be completed where the ditch is already constructed the present irrigation districts would have more water and new areas could be brought under cultivation. This is badly needed if we are to save the waters of these international streams which may go to another country if they are not used here. In addition, the developing of these districts would provide homes for those who have suffered so mueh in their struggle to eke out an existence in the dried-out area, and also homes for many who are returning from the battlefields and are anxious to make a living on the land.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Full View Permalink

April 5, 1945

Mr. GERSHAW:

May I ask the minister to give us a little more detail as to the procedure regarding disposal of the material which is no longer required by the air force? For instance, some of these flying training service schools are abandoned; for months they have been lying idle, and the material which is in them is in great demand. City councils and large school districts are anxious to obtain some of these buildings for dormitories and some of these materials for various purposes. Could the minister tell us what the procedure will be, who will have priorities, and how will buildings or other materials be disposed of?

Topic:   A'PR'IL 4, 1945
Full View Permalink

April 5, 1945

Mr. GERSHAW:

Do provincial governments have priority?

Topic:   A'PR'IL 4, 1945
Full View Permalink

March 29, 1945

1. What steps have been taken toward developing the St. Mary and lledeliff Ronelane irrigation schemes?

2. Are negotiations under way with the province of Alberta regarding an agreement for the completion of this work?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ALBERTA IRRIGATION SCHEMES
Full View Permalink

July 20, 1944

Mr. GERSHAW:

I find that most people appreciate this legislation; they find it of great help and they want to see it kept going. However, I also find that a lot of bitterness exists for the reasons that have been mentioned. One man with a yield of nine or ten bushels will be getting the bonus and another fellow with a yield of six, five or even, four bushels to the acre cannot get the bonus. I realize that this is not an insurance scheme. If it were, it would be under the province and the premium would be much higher.

I should like to suggest to the minister once more the possibility of having each individual investigated. I know it would be an impossible task to have a special man go out to each farmer in the area, but I was wondering if it would not be possible to get the information from the municipal councils. They usually know the yields. Then investigation could be made of those who were reported by the municipal councils. I have found it impossible to answer a man who says, "Why should I not get the bonus when I have a complete crop failure when some other man with a much larger yield is able to get it?" I am wondering if the minister will not consider this suggestion. I am sure he has considered it already.

'Mr. QUELCH: Most of the complaints I get are similar to those which have been enumerated by other hon. members. However, there is another group of farmers who are always penalized under this act. I am referring to the farmer with fairly poor land who lives in a township where the majority of the land is good. Even though such a man has a crop failure he can get no benefits because the average yield of the township is above twelve bushels to the acre. He suffers because the majority of the land is good while his is poor.

I remember that when this question was raised some years ago the minister suggested that it might be possible to define the areas on the basis of soil classification. He said at that

100-324i

time that the department was investigating the question whether it would be possible to define areas on the basis of soil classification rather than on the township basis. Would the minister say whether anything has been done in that regard.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink