1950-02-27

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.-Mr. Benidickson.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table three copies in English and three copies in French of the Niagara diversion treaty, which is being signed in Washington this afternoon by the Canadian ambassador, Mr. Hume Wrong, and by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson. With your permission I should like to make a short statement on this treaty.
We have been discussing with the United States government the possibility of amending article 5 of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909 with respect to the use of water from the Niagara river for the generation of hydroelectric power. In these talks we have had the valuable assistance of the chairman of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the chairman of the Niagara parks commission. The discussions have resulted in a Niagara diversion treaty.
The Boundary Waters treaty of 1909 authorized the diversion by the United States of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second, and the diversion by Canada of 36,000 cubic feet per second. Although Canada was thus allowed to use more water than the United States the power produced by the extra Canadian share has been exported to the United States. As a result, each country has had the use of hydroelectric power produced by approximately half of the water made available by the 1909 treaty.
During the second world war, additional diversions of 13,000 cubic feet per second on the Canadian side and 12,500 cubic feet per second on the United States side were authorized on a temporary basis.
The new Niagara treaty reserves adequate quantities of water for flow over the falls and through the rapids, and then authorizes the use of all remaining water for power
purposes. Since this water will for the first time be divided equally between the two countries, the United States government is being informed through our embassy in Washington that when facilities have been constructed in the United States to use the full United States share of water, Canadian export licences then in effect will not be renewed unless circumstances existing in Canada at that time make such a course desirable.
It is not possible to say just how much more water this treaty will make available to Canada, since the necessity of preserving the scenic beauty of the falls and rapids is the first charge on the fluctuating volume of water in the Niagara river. However, it is expected that both countries will normally have the use of more water than before. At the same time, the fact that the temporary arrangements agreed upon during the war are being superseded by a permanent agreement will permit the construction of new power plants of the latest design to replace a number of existing plants now in operation which cannot make the most effective use of the available water. For these two reasons, a substantial increase in the amount of hydroelectric power generated at Niagara can be expected once this treaty has been ratified and the new power plants have been constructed.
Nevertheless the demand for power keeps increasing, and this additional Niagara power cannot be expected to meet the full needs of Ontario and New York state. The power requirements of these areas can be met only by the full development of the potential power of the St. Lawrence river. The additional Niagara power should help to tide us over the period required for the construction of the St. Lawrence facilities, but the need for St. Lawrence power is as urgent as it ever has been. The new Niagara diversion treaty does not in any way lessen Canada's interest in, and desire for, early ratification by both governments of the St. Lawrence waterway and power agreement of 1941.
The treaty contains two provisions designed to protect and enhance the scenic beauty of the Niagara river and falls. It calls for early completion of remedial works to ensure an unbroken Crestline on the falls by distributing the waters more evenly. It also ensures that the flow over the falls and through the rapids will not be reduced below the amounts

Niagara Diversion Treaty which experience has shown are essential for the preservation of the full scenic spectacle.
I have been advised by the chairman of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario that this treaty meets with the approval of the premier of Ontario, the Ontario hydro, and the Niagara parks commission.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that every hon. member of this house will welcome the statement which has been made with regard to the treaty which is being signed today, not only because it will provide more power for one part of this country, but because of the convincing evidence it offers of the friendly and effective association between Canada and the United States in enterprises of this kind.
I feel sure that everyone will welcome also the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to the effect that this will in no way be allowed to obscure the immense importance of proceeding with the power development of the St. Lawrence river. This treaty will provide an additional supply of water which, with certain new developments in power plant construction, will be of great help; but at a time when Canada and the United States are looking to the protection of the peace which is the main concern of people generally throughout the free world, I believe it is right to say that there could be no more cogent evidence of an effective working partnership between two countries than the fact that an agreement could be reached for power development of the St. Lawrence, which would add so much to the potential resources of both countries for peace or for any situation that might arise.



TRANSFER OF DUTIES


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy of an order in council passed on February 23 under the provisions of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, transferring, effective as of January 18, 1950, the powers, duties and functions vested in the Minister of Finance under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to the Minister of Resources and Development, as was contemplated by the statute setting up the Department of Resources and Development.
The law officers of the crown tell us that, a former transfer having been made from the

Minister of Finance to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, whose department ceased to exist when the new department came into being, it is necessary now to have an order in council transferring these functions from the Minister of Finance to the minister of the new department.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question, for the purpose of clarification only. A moment ago the Prime Minister announced that the Minister of Finance has divested himself of certain responsibilities by transferring them to the Minister of Resources and Development, and that prior to that time he had divested himself of those responsibilities by the same method. How can the Minister of Finance transfer to another minister something he has already transferred from himself to that minister? Simple addition would indicate that he had nothing left to transfer after he had done his first job.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: That was our impression when the statute substituting the new department for the old department was passed, but the law officers of the crown have given the opinion that the order in council which was passed transferring certain duties from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply ceased to have any effect when the statute under which that department was constituted was repealed. The opinion was that it would be necessary to have a new order in council passed to vest these powers and functions in the minister of the new department. Their opinion evidently was that upon the repeal of the statute setting up the ministry of reconstruction and supply the order in council ceased to have effect, and that the powers and functions reverted to the minister who had first been vested with them by parliament.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In other words, there is no intestacy among departments of government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps it would be agreeable to hon. members if, notwithstanding the order made for precedence of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, we should be prepared to bring down on Wednesday answers to most of the questions which are on the order paper. There are already forty-four of them, and I think most of the answers are ready. If it is the wish of the house generally, we could have

the questions, as well as notices of motions for production of papers, called on Wednesday and disposed of.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on February 22 last the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) asked the following question, which is to be found at page 128 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that soldiers belonging to the permanent army must obey orders and move where they are directed, and there are men in the ranks with families moving to Ottawa, is any provision being made for the housing of these men, or must they continue to seek any shelter they can possibly obtain and pay exorbitant prices? Is any attempt being made to provide dwellings for these people?
In answer thereto I should' like to say that the policy of the Department of National Defence is to press forward with the construction of married quarters in more isolated centres. At Rockcliffe, however, because of the number of service personnel employed, 108 houses have already been erected; 200 more are in the course of construction or under contract, and it is expected that contracts for a further 300 units will be placed this year. In addition, the policy is adopted of earmarking some of the houses erected by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in larger centres for service personnel. A large proportion of married service personnel are also veterans and have access to accommodation for veterans. More married quarters in proportion to numbers of personnel have been provided in Canada than in any other country.



REFERENCE TO ADDRESS OF GENERAL MCNAUGHTON TO CANADIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I may say I gave notice of it by letter, but the notice was not long because the subject matter in its full form was brought to my attention only a short time before we met this afternoon. I wish to ask whether the speech made by General A. G. L. McNaughton to the annual meeting of the Canadian Geographical Society in Ottawa on Friday, February 24, was authorized by the Department of National Defence or any other department of the Canadian government. Whether authorized or not, does the government now approve the statements contained in that speech?
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): I shall have to take the question as notice. I had to be away over the week end, and I have not had the opportunity the hon. member apparently has had of seeing the full text of the address. I asked for it as soon as I received his letter, but the best I was able to obtain was the report in the Ottawa Citizen. This it not a full report, and does not contain the paragraph to which the letter of the hon. member refers. I will get the full text. I hope that we may have the opportunity of calling the estimates of the Department of National Defence at an early day, when a full statement will be made as to the matters which apparently were discussed by General McNaughton in his address, and the policy of the government will be outlined.
I may say in the meantime that because of his own personal reputation and the positions he occupies in public affairs any considered statement made by General McNaughton is apt to be given serious consideration by everyone who hears or reads it. This particular statement will receive consideration before the Minister of National Defence makes his statement to the house, and the matters involved therein will be fully dealt with at that time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As today is the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Paardeberg, in which the Royal Canadian regiment so distinguished itself, will the minister give consideration to having the names of the 225 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives in the South African war inscribed in a book of remembrance and retained in the peace tower?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will give attention to my hon. friend's question.



PAYMENT OF BONUS TO EX-PRISONERS OF WORLD WAR II

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It arises out of a number of letters and petitions from army and navy veterans associations as to the adoption by Canada of a system similar to that in effect in the United States, under which $1 a day for the period of their detention is paid to

Inquiries of the Ministry those who were prisoners in the Pacific or European theatres during the period of the last war, or to their dependents. Instead of asking for leave to table the petitions, I shall ask the minister whether consideration is being given by the government to a similar plan of payment or bonus to veterans of the Canadian army who were prisoners of war, or to their dependents?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The representations referred to by my hon. friend came to my attention for the first time over last week end. I have not discussed the matter with my colleagues; consequently I think the exact answer would be that the question has not received the consideration of the government.
I should add at once that in addition to the views that might be held concerning the use of public moneys for this purpose, I believe that fairly strong exception might be taken to such a step, because of the possible effect it might have on the battle morale of Canadian personnel in any future war.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will allow me to say so, in the United States those payments are being made out of reparations, not out of taxation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Without being specific, I would point out that there is quite a difference between the reparations receivable by Canada and those payable to the United States.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider giving the house a statement at an early date as to the government's proposals for relieving unemployment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I read with much interest the report of the debate on Friday on the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would commend it to all those who are interested. On the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne I outlined the government's policies with respect to what we considered to be abnormal seasonal unemployment at this time. I have nothing to add at the moment to what I then said.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Pending the decision of parliament on Bill No. 2,


which proposes the abolition of capital punishment', I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether the government will consider suspending executions in Canada, including those scheduled to take place in Vancouver tomorrow morning.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Solicitor General):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. In reply may I be permitted to say that although proposals to abolish capital punishment have been before this house on previous occasions, we have no departmental record of any request' such as that advanced by my hon. friend having been considered in the past.
As the hon. member knows, the administration of justice throughout Canada is in the hands of the provincial authorities; and according to practice the postponements of executions are matters to be considered upon their merits by the courts of the province under section 1063 of the Criminal Code. It is felt that to act upon a mere legislative proposal as though it were a statutory enactment could hardly be justified. To suspend executions in Canada, as requested by the hon. member, in my estimation would be an improper and unprecedented intervention by the federal executive authority under the law as it stands and as it must' be applied throughout Canada unless and until it is changed by parliament.



P. E. I. CAR FERRY SERVICE INQUIRY AS TO TAKING OVER OF NORTHUMBERLAND FERRIES LIMITED BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I desire to direct an important question to the Minister of Transport. Are the Canadian National Railways going to take over Northumberland Ferries Limited, operating the Wood Islands-Caribou route; and if so when?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The answer at this time is no.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. F. H. Larson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Irvin Studer (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, living in a democracy as we do, we appreciate the opportunity of taking part in

the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Even if it were not customary to congratulate you again on having been elected as Speaker of this house, we should still want to do so, because we feel that while everything may not be all right in the world, with your wisdom and guidance everything is all right in this House of Commons.
I should like also to congratulate the mover of the address, particularly since he is one of us from Saskatchewan. We appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) chose an up-and-coming young man from Saskatchewan to present this motion. We all hope that the ability of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) will become more generally recognized, and that in future he will have the opportunity to be of even greater service to his country.
All who heard the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Dumas) second the motion for the address must have marvelled at his ability to express himself in both languages. As time goes on we hope to be able to do something ourselves in that direction, and reciprocate the kindness French-speaking members have always shown by addressing themselves to us in English when they know we do not understand their mother tongue. The people of Villeneuve also have every right to be proud of their member.
At the same time I should like to congratulate the new minister and the new parliamentary assistants. The people in Maple Creek who have come from other parts of the dominion I know would want me to ask every hon. member to take their greetings back to the places from which they originally came, in almost every part of Canada.
For a few moments 1 should like to speak about my constituency. Situated in the southwest part of Saskatchewan, it is one of the largest in the settled portion of Canada. If one were to travel every road allowance that has been surveyed in Maple Creek, he would travel one and a half times around the world. It is in the Palliser triangle, which is an area extending from a point in north central Saskatchewan, catching a corner of Manitoba and running on down in a southwesterly direction into Alberta. When it has rainfall it has great production, but unfortunately it experiences dry spells which bring extreme crop failure. This is another of those years during which the people of that area are suffering extremely, not only from drought conditions but also from one of the most severe winters in history.
It is difficult for anyone in this or any other country who has never gone through
The Address-Mr. Studer the experience to comprehend what it means to have no crop. We may have marketing and other difficulties, but when a man is without a crop of any kind of course he lacks the wherewithal to sustain himself, he receives no return for his work of a year or perhaps a series of years, and is unable to carry on. The people in that area who have had no income for years are hoping that both provincial and federal governments will see that this spring they are enabled to carry on and make the contribution to the country that they are able to make when they have good crops. We should do everything possible to assist those people who, against great odds and with the utmost difficulty, have remained in that country, hoping against hope eventually to make their contribution to the well-being of the country. I believe it would be a great help if payments to the farmers this spring under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act were made equal in purchasing power to the payments made in 1939, when the act was brought into operation. I do not think that is asking too much, if by doing so we can place these people in a position to carry on and plant another crop without being in debt before the seed is even in the soil.
It is not my intention to dwell on this point at great length. Not all is gloom and despair even in that area, however. Maple Creek has the best beef in Canada. I have been told by those who should know that if you want a good steak you should go to Maple Creek, where the restaurants serve the best steaks in Canada. My constituency also has some of the best sheep in this country; it has the best light horses; it has the best wheat, with the highest protein content in Canada. It has the best, or almost the best, light honey, as witness what happened to the exhibits from Valmarie and Maple Creek this past fall at the Canadian national exhibition. It has the best water because the king and queen were served with this Shaunavon water during their western trip. In the Cypress Hills it has a provincial park. There is one lake, Lac Pelletier, and that is where I live. It has some of the best educational institutions, at Gravelbourg and other places. In common with the other constituencies in the land it has, without a shadow of a doubt, the best people in the world.
Today this area comes under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has been administered by the dominion government. As time goes on it will be found this area is equal to any other area coming under the operation of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. When the operations of this act are
252	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer finally completed, no one will be standing in this house asking for assistance to the people of my area. We want to look after ourselves; we do not want to be beggars all our lives. We want to have a chance to make our living as the remainder of the people do, and to be equal with all the other people in this Dominion of Canada. I hope that in 1950 the dominion and the province will cooperate in making farming possible in this area, as well as in other areas similarly situated.
I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that there was an amendment and subamendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe one part of the amendment called for the elimination of the means test in respect of old age pensions. I believe that everyone in this country, regardless of party, is in favour of the elimination of the means test. If it is to be eliminated and there is not sufficient money available to carry the additional burden of old age pensions, what particular social service could those who moved the amendment offer to reduce the burden of providing additional pensions for the aged? There is only one way of carrying old age pensions without a means test, and that is to increase production. I would suggest to the mover of that amendment that he do everything possible to see that production is increased throughout the length and breadth of Canada, because it is only through increased production that wealth can be made available to pay for the increased social services. If these people desire to be of service to the aged and blind of Canada, and all the others who are in need of assistance, then they can go through this country preaching increased production.
If it is necessary to work an eight-hour day to accomplish that result, well and good. If it takes a nine-hour day, I suggest they recommend that the people work a nine-hour day. If it takes a ten-hour day, they could recommend that the people work ten hours. On the other hand they may wish to recommend that the people follow the example of the farmers and work sixteen hours a day; and no one may be hurt in the process.
From the terms of the amendment, one would think that the aged of this country were in a pitiable condition. It has been suggested that the means test is the meanest test. Can anyone name any other country in the world, under any form of government, that has a better system of old age pensions, or more deductible income in the calculation of income? If so, I wish he would name it. Let us help the aged and the blind, but let us not consider that Canada has been doing something which would not compare favourably with what is being done in any other


country. Which country would they care to uphold to us? Time and again during the last session reference was made to England, New Zealand and Australia, as examples that we should follow. So far this session I have not heard a single reference to those countries. Previously it was said that everything Canada should do should be patterned after what was happening in those countries. None of them, however, can meet what Canada has done in the way of social services. Every country in the world has a means test. If there is one which has not, I wish some hon. member would name it. When the means test is removed, Canada will be the first country in the whole world to remove it.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the mover of the amendment was a former premier of Ontario, while the mover of the subamendment, I understand, is leader of a party which has a government out in Saskatchewan with which he would like us to become intimately acquainted, or possibly even adopt. It seems to me that when members in this House of Commons advocate what should be done, they should have at least set an example in their own particular province, over which, at some time or other, they may have had some control, directly or indirectly. In the province of Ontario, the richest province in the Dominion of Canada, we find no supplementary payment for the aged. In Ontario, however, there is a mothers' allowance. Among the needy people in the world there are those who, through some unfortunate circumstance, have lost the breadwinner of the family. In Ontario these mothers' allowances are paid, but with a means test. I suggest that some people should start practising what they preach before they come into the House of Commons and tell us what to do.
Furthermore, out in the province of Saskatchewan, in spite of what happens in Ontario, the old age pensioners receive a supplementary payment of $2.50, but only after a means test. This was set up by a socialist government. It is necessary to undergo a means test before even this sum of $2.50 is paid. The province of Alberta pays $7.50 as a supplementary payment, without a means test. In British Columbia there is a supplementary payment of $10, without a means test. The socialist members from Saskatchewan have been preaching the elimination of the means test, yet there is a means test in that province before the old age pensioners receive that low supplementary payment.
The province of Saskatchewan also pays a mothers' allowance with a means test. It is the lowest mothers' allowance payment made by any province in Canada. These members from Saskatchewan, therefore, must be

talking with their tongues in their cheeks when they come before this House of Commons and try to tell us that they are the only people who have any regard for the rest of the people in Canada.
Again I would say that, when such a subamendment is put forward, those who favour it should practise what they preach. Let us all work together to make it possible for the aged and blind to receive adequate compensation. Let us find ways and means of increasing production, so that the wealth will be available to enable Canada to be the first country to remove the means test.
I believe the subamendment said that the government had failed to take adequate measures to protect civil liberties, and at the same time to curb espionage and other harmful activities of communists and fascists in Canada. If I recall aright, three or four years ago something happened in regard to espionage in Canada. As I recall it, there were some people in the socialist group who, either directly or indirectly, pleaded for the spies who were arrested and brought up for trial. If I do not remember correctly, I suggest that hon. members look at page 5742 of Hansard of August 31, 1946, and see what the present minister of health in the Saskatchewan government said about the fellows who were arrested for espionage in Canada; at that time he was the member for Swift Current. Read what he said, and then revert back to this subamendment which suggests that the government has not taken adequate measures to curb espionage in Canada. If it were possible for me to move another subamendment, it would read like this: That the government failed to take adequate measures to protect the civil liberties and at the same time to curb espionage and other harmful activities of communists, fascists and, I would add, socialists in Canada. I will not say that they are the same; I will only say that they are related. Blood is thicker than water. Some of the things that are in fascism are in socialism, and some of the things that are in both are in communism. They are therefore related. As someone so kindly told me yesterday, the farther you are from socialism, the farther you are from communism. I think that is true.
In any event, I heard some explanations from some of those over on the socialist benches last session, and there was an indication of it this year in which they tried to tell us that they were not communists, if I remember correctly. My thought on the matter is this. Why speak about not being a communist if you are not one, or if you have no association with them? Why talk about it at all? One thing I have not heard in this House of Commons is a corking good
The Address-Mr. Studer speech against communism by any of those socialists over in the far corner of the house. I suggest that they can all talk on that subject and make real speeches on the evils of communism. They are certainly the people to do so, because there is not a single subject that has ever been brought before this House of Commons on which they have not been able to give an opinion. I have listened to their profound, pontifical and infallible pronouncements for quite a number of days, and certainly they would be the people to do justice to a good speech against communism.
I noticed that the leader of the socialists over in that far corner was telling us the other day what bred communism and fascism. I ask him what breeds socialism; and if it is not exactly the same thing, I will take back everything I have said. No matter where you look around the world, socialism is out of date and is passing out of the picture; and if there are any people living in this Dominion of Canada who have nothing better than socialism to offer, I think they had better go back to their studies, go through all the history of the world and find out all the causes of everything, including the causes of war; because irrespective of what hon. members over there have been talking about, I hope to have the opportunity some time to show this House of Commons that an "ism" practised somewhere in the world-and that includes the last ten years-has been the cause of every war that we have had. Socialism is out of date. The socialists preach about the benefits of socialism. Where has it ever been in existence long enough for anyone to know whether it is good, bad or indifferent? It does not last. It passes out of the picture, because as soon as people see what it is based on, they begin to find ways and means of discarding it as rapidly as they possibly can. It is something that does not stay fixed. It is like this hybrid wheat that the scientists have produced; they take a parent of one wheat and a parent of another wheat, and cross them. They work for years trying to develop a new variety of wheat. One of their greatest troubles is to have that wheat remain fixed. After a variety is established and reseeded, it reverts to the variety of the one parent or the-other. Difficulties have been experienced with this hybrid wheat, just as difficulties have been experienced with hybrid corn in the United States. It does not reseed itself. You always have to go back and get hybrid corn. It is the same way with socialism; it does not stay fixed. I think if these socialists, who I believe are good people, would concentrate their efforts on building up some kind of "ism" that does not have to be imported, it

The Address-Mr. Studer would be much better. We must import many things, but let us leave those "isms" in the places where they originated. They have no place in Canada.


Mr. Gillis:: What happened to the Liberals in England?


Irvin William Studer: I will let the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) have all the fun he wants to. The other day he was talking about shooting. I should like to have him tell us whom he is going to shoot at.
If we want to nip communism in the oud, Mr. Speaker, I believe the best way to do that is to nip socialism in the bud; then we shall have them both. But in the meantime let no one think that we are just concerned with that. Some of the things that are said about the causes of these "isms" are most certainly true. It is up to us in this democratic country to make sure that the conditions that would bring about a situation of that kind are eliminated.
We have heard some talk about unemployment, and we have heard reasons advanced for it; we have been told that some of it is seasonal, some perhaps otherwise. But if there is one thing that the people of this country should guard against, in my opinion, unemployment certainly is that thing. If there is any anguish in the heart of the father of a family in this country who is denied the right to earn daily bread for his family, it may have unhappy results. I repeat what has been said by many others, that hunger will drive people to do almost anything in an effort to sustain the children who are dependent upon them. Therefore I would advise government, whether it is the government I support or any other one throughout the length and breadth of this country, to let no condition appear anywhere that causes suffering, hardship, privation and the anguish that is in the hearts of those who are not permitted to earn their daily bread. No democratic government anywhere in the world can afford to let a condition such as that exist. The only countries that can afford to do so are the totalitarian countries, the dictatorship countries; because they can take their unemployed and put them in the army or put them in a camp. We do not do that in the democratic countries.
So I say that if you eliminate the causes that give concern and anxiety to the people of this country, you will not have very much to worry about. Every resource of every province should be utilized to eliminate this condition, if it exists-and we have been told that it does; otherwise in the future there will not be any resources there to use.
I believe I heard some talk about employment on farms. We sometimes hear people talking about the movement of farmers to the


cities. I believe it is a fact. We have the eight-hour day, the forty-hour week, and two weeks' vacation with pay for our labouring people-and that is a good thing; I want the labouring people to have the best of everv-thing; I want them to have all the purchasing power that it is possible for them to have, because as a farmer I want a place to sell my goods, and if labour has no purchasing power -and it is the biggest consumer in Canada- my goods will not be sold. So I want them to have everything they can possibly have that will increase their health, their consuming capacity, and their enjoyment of life. But if labour can maintain a good standard of living by working eight hours a day and forty hours a week, how long are we to expect the farm boys and their fathers to work from twelve to sixteen hours a day and not have a standard of living equal to that of the labouring people with their eight-hour day system?
In my view one of the greatest difficulties facing Canada today is that people have been drawn away from the farms. The time will come when people may have to go hungry either in this or in other countries. Therefore we have to bring those people back to the farms and improve farm conditions. We have to modernize them and create a love of the soil, something which is missing in this country today. Only love of the soil will enable the farmers to nurture it and to give it the care it needs to keep it from eroding. They must adopt a system of rotation, and care for the soil as they would care for members of their families.
That is what love of the soil means. But it is fast disappearing from this country. So if there is anything any of us can do to keep the importance of farming before the people of this country, and the importance of the growing of food, we shall have accomplished something, we shall have made a contribution to the welfare of our country.
Farming is a way of life-a way I would not exchange for any other way of life. But it is a way of life which many people are exchanging for a substance which they think is a reality, to be found in other forms in the cities and elsewhere. Let us remember that there has never been any record in the history of any country of their having a too prosperous agriculture. There has never been any danger of that; let us keep that in mind, over and above many other things which are not of such great importance.
Many of us in the House of Commons and out Saskatchewan way have been giving a considerable amount of thought and have been pondering ways and means of alleviating conditions, not only in the drought areas

of Saskatchewan but throughout the province as a whole. Everyone in Canada knows that Saskatchewan has problems which are common to no other province. The missionaries who went through that land seventy-five or a hundred years ago came back with reports about it and gave advice to governments of that day as to what they thought, based on the information they had gained and what they had learned from the first settlers, the Indians, about what the country could support in the future. They indicated what in their opinion would be the proper number of people to be allowed to take up land out there, and they made suggestions as to what the government could do about it. They emphasized the danger of overgovernment-government at too great a cost for the number of people in any given area. Along with other difficulties in Saskatchewan, it is my view that that is one of our greatest problems. We have too much government for our limited population; the people cannot carry the burden of taxation, and financial difficulties follow which are carried to the dominion government.
It will be recalled that in recent years past the government of Saskatchewan came to the dominion year after year, asking for assistance when the province was unable to carry itself. Again we witnessed the same thing at the dominion-provincial conference held here in Ottawa in January, upon which occasion I was privileged to attend. The premier of Saskatchewan placed before the government of Canada the situation in that province, and described the dire need for assistance and additional help. That was found to be necessary despite the fact that for ten years Saskatchewan has operated under prosperous conditions, the most prosperous she has ever known. Yet if after prosperous years the provincial authorities time after time have to come to the dominion to ask for assistance, what is going to happen when conditions change?-because our socialist friends have been saying during the past year that conditions are going to change. In fact I think many of them have developed cricks in their necks from looking around corners in search of the depression they have been telling us about for the last ten years. When it does come-if it does-I hope it will not be a socialist depression. It appears to me we could get out from under any other depression we might get into; but when you get into a socialist depression you are in it until kingdom come.
I have no intention of living in any country in which there is a policy of rationing poverty. Under our system we can produce the goods; everyone knows we can. We may have some difficulty in the distribution of
The Address-Mr. Studer them, but we can certainly correct that condition as time goes on. But the socialist philosophy is "make the rich poor". That is the first thing they talk about. There are too many rich people, they say, and too many poor people; we will make the rich poor-and then everyone will be poor. That is the result.
So we have the provincial authorities coming to the dominion government asking for assistance in the matter of education; asking for assistance with old age pensions; asking for assistance in health measures; asking for road assistance-everything anyone could want, they will be asking for. But do not worry about that, because the socialists in Saskatchewan have a wonderful answer; they are most efficient at spending other people's money. But when it comes to earning any money of their own, that is different!
I suggest there are too many people from the government of Saskatchewan coming down to Ottawa and asking for things- people who have no qualifications except that all their lives they have been making their living with their tongues. They have no callouses on their hands, but there would be some on their tongues, because they do nothing but talk.
Anyone who will take the trouble to look at the order paper of the legislature in Saskatchewan at this time will find one resolution after another asking the dominion government for assistance. If we have to have a government out in Saskatchewan which has no purpose other than that of spending the dominion's money, then I think some thought should be given to correcting the situation which exists out there.
They seem to have plenty of solutions for their difficulties. One of them was to import a bunch of streamlined planners from other countries. They could not spend the money fast enough themselves. There was $8 million in the treasury when they came into office, but they could not get rid of it fast enough, so they got these planners to get rid of it in a hurry. And how they got rid of it!
Ever since they have been in power, taxes have gone up. I am speaking seriously when I say that taxes have increased in Saskatchewan to such an extent that I am seriously considering whether I can continue to farm. Taxes are just as much an overhead on my farm as are any other expenses which enter into the production of the commodities I produce. If these conditions continue to exist, or even grow worse from year to year, I do not know what will happen to the future of that part of our country.

The Address-Mr. Studer The socialists have offered a solution. The local school districts got into trouble, and the socialists said: Boys, that is not the way to run a school district; the way to do it is to create a large district, so that if there happens to be a crop failure in a local district you will have the larger district to depend upon.


Mr. Wright:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to ask a question. Who put the larger school unit legislation on the statute book?


Irvin William Studer: It was put on the statute book for people to use if they wished; but it was not forced upon them.
So we have this offered as a solution, that if there is a crop failure in a local school district they will depend upon the larger area. But when the larger area has a crop failure, who do they depend upon? Right away they come racing down to the dominion government to find a solution-to get money. There is another solution offered in Saskatchewan in connection with the larger municipal districts. As a result of the possible larger districts they think the solution is automatically founds
It seems to me that some of the people over in Europe worked things out that way, but on a larger scale. In every communist country it was suggested that the solution of the problem was to bring in a larger area. We see the communist people in Russia expanding their influence throughout the world. They are reaching out to other countries. Hitler had the same idea. There is a trend that way in connection with all these isms. They feel that that is the solution for whatever condition that may exist. Perhaps it is and, if so, I should like to see the school districts stay in the hands of the local people because it keeps government close to the people. The farther away the people get from government, the more danger there is for the people. The same with the municipal districts. I should like to keep them close to the people, so that the idea of self-government will remain in their minds. All these local governments should be kept close to the people.
But in the larger economic sphere of the provinces and the dominion perhaps they could be operated in a larger way without placing undue hardship on any one. I think there is a solution for the financial difficulties facing the government of Saskatchewan. History has proved that this province cannot carry its financial economy without overburdening the people with taxation. The 

quicker a solution is found, the better it will be and it should not be a piecemeal solution. Let us grapple with this thing in its entirety, in its largeness.
I suggest to the province of Saskatchewan and its government that they provide in the forthcoming session of their legislature for a solution to their financial difficulties. I suggest that that solution could be achieved by taking a plebiscite of the people of Saskatchewan as to what they wish to do. Instead of adopting the practice they have adopted in Europe of acquiring more land, I suggest that the province of Saskatchewan give away part of their land. They should take that area up to the third meridian west of Regina and Moose Jaw and apportion it to Manitoba. They should take that area west of the third meridian and apportion it to Alberta. They would thus eliminate the unbearable cost of extra government now in existence with its highest rate of cost in Canada. A great burden would be removed from the shoulders of the people.
Something definite and desperate has to be done. The area apportioned .to Manitoba would be similar in character to the farming land of Manitoba. The area that would be apportioned to Alberta would fit into the economy of that province, because it would be the same type of land. The people in the area apportioned to Manitoba would then receive the social services available in that province as well as the advantages of the power development which the people in Saskatchewan now have to go without. The people in the area that would go into the province of Alberta would receive an extra $7.50 per month in old age pensions without a means test as against $2.50 per month with a means test that is now being paid in Saskatchewan.
This would create better conditions in western Canada and I think it is inevitable that it will be brought into effect. You cannot have 800,000 people carrying the burden of a socialist government such as they have to do in Saskatchewan. I cannot see how they can continue to pay the increasing expenses and greater rates of taxation year by year. If hon. members do not believe that, let them watch the tax situation next year under the most prosperous conditions that we have had. Let them note the high rate of governmental cost brought about by the depopulation of the province. We had one less constituency in the last election and we are going to have three less in the next election.
A lot of people who are in governmental service in Saskatchewan should try to be statesmen instead of being merely politicians. Let them do something that will prove to be of real benefit to the people instead of adopting

piecemeal measures. Perhaps some of those gentlemen would not like to be considered statesmen. I understand that the leader out there is more or less of a shrinking violet and might not want to have much fame accrue to him. However, when- history is written it will look much nicer if you are considered to have -been a statesman in working out the general economy of the country.
The area that would go into Manitoba has the same type of farm land as that province. The people in that area would enjoy lower taxation. Their farms could be modernized as they would have the advantage of the power system of that province. The area that would go into Alberta is made up of the same type of ranch land. The people in that area would have the advantages of the mineral wealth of that province, and the people in the area going to Manitoba would have the benefits of the economy of that province.
Our oil and other mineral resources would be developed as they are not at the present time. The only way oil can be developed in Saskatchewan is to have a tunnel dug under the boundary line. There is a statement in the manifesto, in the handbook or bible of the socialists, to the effect that the C.C.F. will not rest content until capitalism is eradicated from the entire economy, or word's to that effect, and I think I am pretty close to the meaning.
If that is the situation how can anyone expect capital to come into Saskatchewan? If you do not allow capital to come in then the state must become the capitalist. How are you going to extract sufficient money from the people so that the state can become the capitalist and develop these oil resources?
I like the system we have under which capital can develop oil or anything else and then be taxed according to its production or wealth as is done in any democratic country. In the meantime -they talk of safeguarding the natural resources of the province for the people and the oil stays under the ground.
I do not know what kind of arrangement the premier of the province of Saskatchewan made when he went to see the chaps in Wall street or St. James street or Bay street. I do not know whether he told them this, but I wonder if he did not say, "Just disregard this thing about eradicating capitalism; that is just there for the real socialist and fellow travellers because we have to try to satisfy everybody". Even if that was said I still do not think that capital is going to come into that province with the prospects of their saying, "Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly".
That is one of the difficulties we have out there. We have great overhead in connection with government, a thing that is becoming
The Address-Mr. Studer more unbearable every year through the depopulating that is taking place. This burden is going to increase by leaps and bounds until we will be forced into having two prairie provinces instead of three. In 1895 a proposal was made to Sir John Macdonald that the Manitoba boundary be on the third meridian. In 1901 Sir Charles Tupper had a resolution before the Manitoba legislature which was passed unanimously that the boundary line be on the third meridian west of Regina and Moose Jaw.
Even 55 years ago they seemed to realize what the situation would become in Saskatchewan, and truly it has become the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has exceeded his time and may continue only with unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no, that is enough.


Irvin William Studer: My parliamentary assistant told me that I had five minutes left, but I agree with Your Honour's count. I wanted to say a word about marketing, but there will be other opportunities to deal with that matter. In the meantime I will bring my remarks to a close by suggesting that we all work together to try to make this Canada of ours, which is so great in the eyes of the rest of the world, still greater in the future.
There is one thing that stands out in my estimation of this country. We have the best government anywhere in the world. I believe we have the best opposition anywhere in the world. I believe we have the best socialists of any country in the world. I believe we have in Canada the best Social Crediters. We can work together, and if I may I should like to suggest to our friends of the opposition that they should not get all hot and bothered about these inquiries into various organizations. I suggest that they should not make too much of them, and that they should not launch their lifeboats and man their oars in an effort to try to save all the people who might be harmed by a tempest in a teapot. Every member of the opposition has talents, and I suggest that they use them to help to make progress in Canada.
With all of us working together, including the socialists, there is nothing we cannot do. If we are not proud of our country, all the rest of the world is. In every parliament of the world the Canadian parliament and people are held up as an example for other peoples of the world to follow. We are going to continue to hold the lead by the use of the abilities and talents of all the people so that the rest of the people of the world will forever look to us for their guidance. We are a country that is not encumbered by any of the things that afflict the older countries. We
258	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe have the natural resources and everything else that go to make us the greatest country in the world, and every one of us can make our contribution.
Finally, may I say that we have done it all and retained our freedom, something that should not be overlooked in the world in which we are living today. We have maintained our freedom, and in the future we will continue to do so. All our efforts will be directed towards making Canada great and towards maintaining our freedom so that we can be free and strong, because only the strong can be free.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with keen interest, as I know all other members have, to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). He has at least contributed a touch of humour, and indeed it was a touch of inspiration to find there is at least one Liberal member in the house who is going to get definite and desperate. I certainly realize that he will add something to the party to which he belongs. He will give them a little more incentive to be forthright. I followed his speech with keen interest. There was one feature of it with which I can agree, and that is that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is a matter of great concern. There is no feature of our parliamentary system that is looked forward to with as keen interest or as keen a sense of responsibility as the speech from the throne. It is always cautiously written by the government of the day and is graciously read by His Excellency, our popular Governor General.
I feel that I must join the other hon. members of the house in congratulating sincerely the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) on the dignity with which they discharged their responsibilities in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Indeed, each showed marked ability, and I congratulate them and hope that they will be able to render long and useful service either in power or in opposition. On the other hand, I should like to carry my congratulations a little further than was done by other hon. members because it took some skill and ability to find in the speech from the throne, which was so conspicuous for what was not in it, so many reasons for supporting it. In fact it was quite a document. It was full of glittering generalities and boastfulness of the government. It spoke of the splendid demand and high prices for farm products, but it included plans to support prices and take care of surpluses as they arose. It spoke of employment being at a high level in Canada,


and of the wonderful times we are enjoying, but it planned also for extension of unemployment insurance. It spoke of controls and the desire for the elimination of controls, but it made provision for more controls. It spoke of the social security that was promised and was said to be ready even before the last election, but it suggested that in the second session of this parliament we should have a committee to investigate whether or not it would be logical to do anything at the next session. Therefore it is a speech which is important from many angles.


Mr. Cruickshank:: June 27.


William Earl Rowe: You were lucky last June. It spoke of the responsibility for markets, said that we have had great markets overseas, and that the government took the credit for securing those markets, but in a masterly form of absolution they excused themselves for any of the dangers of losing markets that are confronting us at the present time. The speech from the throne suggests that our unemployment situation is temporary. It was amazing to me to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) say the other day that the situation was temporary and was caused by too much snow in British Columbia to draw saw logs.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is unfair.


William Earl Rowe: Too much snow in British Columbia to draw saw logs, but not enough snow in Quebec to ride skis. The Prime Minister also suggested, even though he promised the people of the country that dealing with unemployment would be one of the first obligations of the government, that if times get more difficult and the situation is not as temporary and seasonal as he has suggested then it is high time for the municipalities to do something because they are wealthy. He said that if a man who has a white-collar job in an office loses it it is high time that the municipality should do something for him by putting him to work digging sewers or cellars, or constructing sidewalks, so as to give him employment, and that it should be paid for by the municipalities.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why do you not do that in Ontario?


William Earl Rowe: It is a haphazard sketch of the bright spots of the past and it is a negative approach to the dark spots that may arise in the future. I agree with the hon. member for Maple Creek that it is not a good thing to be talking about the dark side of things. He and I, and all others who are farmers, know that we do not believe in talking pessimistically, but it is just as foolish to be one of those types of optimists, like the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who do not

care what happens as long as they do not have to pay more. There is no use in facing the situation with such blind optimism.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question?


William Earl Rowe: Oh, go ahead.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Can my friend cite a greater height of optimism than the provincial convention of the Conservative association in Alberta?


William Earl Rowe: I was not talking about that. I was not there and neither was my friend, but I will say that if he had been there it would not have improved the convention. I agree with the hon. member for Maple Creek that this is a great' young country. We should be standing on the threshold of the greatest advancement we have ever had, but the country is pleading for leadership and vision that seems to be so conspicuously absent in the present government, as indicated by the speech from the throne. We know now, and the government knows, that we are experiencing a swift loss of overseas markets, a rapid decline in employment, and the uncertainty of the policies of the government' as evidenced in every speech we hear made by members on that side of the house, and the changing speeches we hear from the different ministers. This situation has a tragic similarity to the condition which existed about twenty years ago, in 1929 and 1930. It has a tragic similarity, because the first time we lost a major portion of the British market was during the last year this same party was in power before the crash of 1930. In the last year and a half the Liberal government' was in power we lost more of the British market than at any time since confederation.


Mr. Warren:: Baloney.


William Earl Rowe: You may produce baloney on your farm, and certainly that is all you have given us in this house. We know, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows, that at this crucial stage in world history we have lost the British market more rapidly than in any previous period; and every hon. member within the sound of my voice fears what will be the effect of the economy of this country. Yet we still hear them harping about the Bennett buggies and the low prices of 1931-32.


Ralph Melville Warren: Why not?


William Earl Rowe: As a farmer the hon. member must know, if he knows anything, that every elevator in the country was full of unsold wheat. That was the position at the time the Liberals went out of power. They knew the depression was on the way, and they slid out in time to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the mess in which they
55946-17J
The Address-Mr. Rowe left the country. The farmers of Canada know very well what is happening now. It is quite evident to me, after sitting in this house for a number of years watching the manoeuvres, the inclinations and the trends of Liberal policy. It is quite apparent that the second generation Liberal government is at least consistent in one thing; that is, in its inability to develop and strengthen British commonwealth and sterling area trade relationships.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs; but, Mr. Speaker, the party to your right have been looking north and south for trade instead of east and west all down through the years, as history will show. As evidence of that fact we have the statement by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) not very long ago. Speaking in London on December 29, just before the new year, the hon. gentleman said the United States was our natural market. Further he is reported to have said that we are all Americans; that whether we like it or not we are going to have to stay close to the United States; that we are a dollar country and we will stay that way, even if it means paying a little more for our goods. Apparently this is the twentieth century version of the same type of Liberalism that proposed commercial union with the United States in the nineteenth century.
Such disregard for the British and sterling area markets by a government with such a top-heavy majority in this house is to my mind one of the darkest signs on our economic horizon at this time. No hon. member within sound of my voice will deny that this has been our best market for the last hundred years, or certainly since confederation. When I read that speech by the parliamentary assistant I realized that some men are bom to greatness, some achieve greatness, and others must surely have it thrust upon them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Some just aspire to it.


William Earl Rowe: And I am afraid you will be aspiring for a long time. Who will say that the sterling market is a joke? Who will try to laugh it off, as the hon. member is doing? Since confederation this young country, the greatest dominion in the British commonwealth, the senior dominion of all, has sold to the British commonwealth and the sterling area $15,000 million more than they purchased from us, while during the same period we bought from the United States almost $11,000 million more than we sold them. That is a difference of $26,000 million. When the job evaluation of those products is taken
260	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe into account, our economists tell us that having in mind the more completely processed products that have gone to the sterling area our favourable trade balance with that area has given five times as many jobs to Canadians as the trade balance with the United States. Just look at the rapid increase in unemployment that occurs when our overseas markets fall off.
I urge this house to consider what the loss of those markets would mean; of what vital concern they are to this country, and the unemployment and hunger that will follow if we lose them. For twenty-five years I have listened to members belonging to the party opposite talk about establishing our great national status. I have been hearing that since shortly after the time of the late Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. I know it was a grand thing for Canada to drop her colonial status; but to listen to hon. members opposite one would think some of us did not know we were no longer colonials. As far as I can see, our status twenty years ago was just about the same as it is now. At that time it was defined by the late Sir George Foster, in Rudyard Kipling's words to the effect that we were daughter in our mother's house but mistress in our own; yet we still hear the Prime Minister telling us of the great thing he has done by removing the colonial status from Canada.	You would
almost think hungry people could eat this new status; but it won't buy milk for the babies, and it won't give men jobs.
The greatest commonwealth in the world is the British commonwealth. Its leadership in the United Nations is striking proof of that fact. That is why last year I urged that we should try to bring about another commonwealth trade conference. Nothing is more needed today, in my judgment, than a conference between Canada and the sterling area. If we do not do something of that kind, if we do not recover our trade with the sterling area, the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) and his friends in western Canada, as well as those of us who live in the east, will have darker days ahead of us. Those who have been talking about colonial status should have given a little more time to the study of economic statistics, so they might learn something of where we were going.
The recovery of those markets is most essential, though so far this government has refused even to recognize the problem. It has refused to listen to any of the speakers on this side of the house. It refused to listen to my leader and other members of this party who pleaded with the government last year and the year before, and who tried to tell the people the facts during the election campaign.


Indeed, they even refused to read reports issued by their own departments. When the crisis did come, after the election campaign was over, they almost refused to believe themselves.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs; and the louder he laughs the more certain I am that I am right. Speaking at New Westminster, British Columbia, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated that Canada's post-war domestic economy was expanding so rapidly that we were actually stuck for something to sell on the overseas market. Then in Toronto on June 21 he said:
Nothing is further from the truth than the Conservative charge that Canada is losing its export markets. Anyone who suggests we are losing our markets abroad and especially our British markets is talking nonsense.
But on December 5 of the same year we in this house read this statement contained in a report by his own department:
Severe international factors threaten the level of Canada's exports this year. Total exports for the month 19 per cent down.
Then hon. members will recall that on December 8, only three days after that, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture as to our rapidly diminishing British market, the government would again consider calling a British commonwealth trade conference. The minister replied:
I do not know of any rapidly diminishing markets overseas.
This is three days after his own department had told him about it. The unanimity with which these political champions ignore the problem could not have been improved upon, even if they had regular rehearsals during the election campaign. I do believe, however, that the first prize should go to one of them. I do not think anyone could surpass the political versatility of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I believe he was the star performer on this travelling stage of champions of trade overseas.
On June 6 at Spy Hill, Saskatchewan, the minister said:
When critics of the government claim Canada is losing its overseas markets they don't know what they are talking about.
That is a Canadian Press report of June 7.
On June 23, the Minister of Agriculture was reported as follows:
The Minister of Agriculture tonight said there is no evidence to support the contention of C.C.F. leader Coldwell that Canada is losing the British food market. Mr. Gardiner said the evidence is quite the opposite.

That seems strange, in view of the fact that in Brantford, Ontario, on December 5, speaking at a board of trade dinner, the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner-I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when the farmers of Ontario want entertainment, they send for the Minister of Agriculture, because he always make a good speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I wanted to say something you could applaud.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How could you understand it?


William Earl Rowe: I believe the minister has just as much respect for the intelligence of the Ontario farmer as he has for my hon. friend. Speaking at Brantford, Ontario, on December 5, the minister recalled that Canada had become Britain's chief supplier of wheat, apples, pork, eggs and cheese as well as large quantities of beef and milk. He then said:
During the last two years a very decided official effort has been made to drive every one of these products excepting wheat off the British market. And now that the four-year wheat contract is drawing to a close an effort is being made to drive off a considerable part of our wheat as well.
Continuing, he said:
Therefore, if Canada's agriculture was to be threatened further in the "cold war" over exchange, even free trade farmers would have to advise all farmers to buy where they could sell.
And the only place where we can sell freely for the time being is in Canada.
On December 10, the Minister of Agriculture, replying to the leader of the C.C.F. party, said that there had been a deliberate refusal by the British government to purchase in Canadian markets. He said:
When we met with them in the fall of 1947 they said they did not want our food products except wheat. The second time they visited us, in 1948. they included cheese, but they did not include cheese in 1947. They said: "We prefer not to have these products." As a matter of fact, at certain stages they said they would not take these products, and at certain stages we said other things which induced them to take the products.
The minister added that the people of Britain wanted the food, but that government officials were objecting to the contract. They are the ones they are blaming now for the loss of our markets. I am not going to say "we told you so," but the hon. members of this house know the history of that. It is well known that these markets have been lost. It is strange to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture knew of those things two years before, but two weeks before the election conditions were never brighter. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told the farmers not to worry, everything would be fine as long as they were returned to power.
The Address-Mr. Rowe
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself joined this election chorus of these happy vote hunters, and started out on a similar campaign. I can understand the Minister of Agriculture fooling the farmers, but I cannot understand how he fooled the Prime Minister on this question. Speaking at Moncton on May 19, the Prime Minister assured the good people of that district that his government had been able to find markets for about everything we have to sell. He imagined most of the people felt they could trust the government in the future, since it had been so successful.
The same day at Moncton the Prime Minister said that today the outlook is far brighter than at the end of the war, and whenever there are markets to be found for Canadian exports a Liberal government will find them. These are strange allegations to make, even at election time, when the Minister of Agriculture knew two years before that they were not facts.
On June 13, the leader of our party said that the Liberals were trying to hide the rapid loss of overseas markets, which resulted directly from unsound monetary policies, restrictions, embargoes, and interference with trade generally. He said that the subject was being discussed openly outside Canada, and in a way which was in itself the most severe indictment of the present government. This is the point he made, which I want to urge upon you: *
The Canadian trade picture is deteriorating so rapidly that it is not out of place to suggest that the government sprang the election before the situation became so serious that it could not possibly be returned at the polls. Foreign trade is that important to Canadians and to Canadian politics.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How many seats did
you get?


William Earl Rowe: I am telling you how you got your seats, by misrepresentation to the public.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, if congratulations are in order in this august body; because, now that the farmers know the truth, they do not love him as much as they love Barbara Ann Scott, but nevertheless for fine figure skating on thin political ice they believe he is without a rival.
It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to rehash what has been said before. It is not my purpose, either, to tell this house what the Minister of Agriculture admits when he visits the federation of agriculture, that these markets are lost. It is not unfair to say that the Minister of Agriculture knows, even if some hon. members do not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know it.

The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: I am not surprised at that, either. The minister has admitted his failure to hold this market.


Ralph Melville Warren: No.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend is not admitting it, but he does not know what he is talking about. There are none so blind as those who will not see, but I shall not enter into a controversy with my hon. friend because there are other important matters to discuss. This bulk trading policy has failed, as the Minister of Agriculture knows. His control of lower than world prices for our farmers, to ensure stability of markets in peacetime, has cost the farmers of Canada more than the billion dollars which we anticipated. Everyone in Canada knows that.


Mr. Gardiner:: You cut your colleague's figures in two.


William Earl Rowe: I have heard your figures before, and you can still fancy-skate on figures.
This novel experiment has been a costly nightmare for our farmers, destroying their chances in markets at world prices. It is now losing the stability of markets in the country favoured with those low prices at that time. The Minister of Agriculture has at least distinguished himself as the greatest gambler in the marketing of farm products this country has ever known.
It is not surprising to find, in spite of the applause and catcalls of those who do not understand, that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture is out flying kites on the hustings. He must be speaking for the Minister of Agriculture, and if he is not he should not be the parliamentary assistant. If you do not believe me, listen to what he said in western Ontario.


Lionel Chevrier: What did he say?


William Earl Rowe: I shall tell you in a moment. I think you wrote it for him. He said that, so far as the farmers were concerned, they would rather handle their own business. They should handle their own business. Here is what he said. I still think the minister wrote it, although he would not say so.
"The sooner the dominion government gets out of handling the farmer's products, the better the farmer will be in Canada."
"As a farmer," he said. "I wonder if the farmers wish the government to bolster their products with floor prices and subsidies."
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the parliamentary assistant to the man who tried so desperately to control our markets in good times and now so cleverly tries to escape from the responsibility in the more difficult times that are ahead. He should be sitting with you. I thought they would raise his salary because
IMr. Cruickshank.]

he is doing a good job of letting you out of a difficult situation. The government seems to be very astute. First, they ignore the problem entirely. 'Then when they see the problem, they blame it on the British government or something else. Then when they have to face it, they put the baby on someone else's doorstep, whether he is the father of it or not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is always an
orphan Conservative.


William Earl Rowe: I am not going to enlarge on
this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is of course the most responsible man of all for these men of many minds. He was a successful lawyer before he took on this important task and he has at least some excellent qualities and background that fit him to handle it. I know that he entered upon the task and became associated with these hon. gentlemen with the very best of intentions; because speaking at Toronto, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star, which is just as friendly to him as it is to my leader most of the time, he said:
My experience of men and their reactions has been gained in a long experience at the bar, appearing before judges who wanted facts and only facts -in other words, the truth and nothing but the truth.
That is a most wholesome experience, Mr. Speaker. We farmers are often handicapped in not having such advantages. A legal training is very helpful. I find it helpful when I meet men in difficulties and it is sometimes helpful here in parliament. But as a farmer said to me on one occasion: There is nothing like a legal training. When I listened to the leader of the Liberal party, he said, I was convinced. It enables men to handle the truth skilfully to their advantage; indeed, it seems to make them look more honest than most young men can be. I believe there is something in that.
As one who has sat in this house for many years and has been reasonably close to the policies of the Progressive Conservative party, may I say that I was shocked to read some of the speeches that were made in the last election campaign by our present Prime Minister, especially having regard to one or two items. I would ask the hon. member not to point his finger at me, but to look after himself. Everyone in Canada knows that for at least the last fifteen years, the statement that was made by every leader behind whom I have had the honour to sit in this house with respect to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway was that our policy was "Amalgamation never, competition ever." That statement was made in this house and it was made

on the hustings, and the matter has never been a political issue since. It has never been discussed in a Conservative caucus or in a Conservative convention or any other place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. members have never been in the Conservative caucus and never will be. I know, and every other sensible gentleman in this house knows.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There are no sensible
men in the Conservative caucus.


William Earl Rowe: I am not assuming that the hon. member is not sensible; but I cannot help it if he does not belong to the Conservative party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When the hon. member
questions the honesty of my leader 1 object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: I am not questioning that. I
am questioning the strict integrity of purpose having regard to the facts.
Speaking at Smiths Falls on June 18, 1949, the Prime Minister stated, as reported in the Ottawa Journal:
We do not believe in the amalgamation of C.P.R. and C.N.R. . . . We don't believe in the form of amalgamation as proposed by the C.C.F. nor the other kind of amalgamation we fear is the secret objective of the Progressive Conservative party. We think our transportation system is a good system and one which will meet our needs.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


William Earl Rowe: If there is nothing wrong with it in the hon. member's mind, may I say that it is rather remarkable that a similar statement was reported from another great railway divisional centre.


Ralph Melville Warren: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I have listened to my hon. friend so often, I can say that he is almost more interesting now when nobody knows what he is saying than he is when he is making a speech.
On June 3, 1949, speaking in Stratford, another select railway divisional point, the Prime Minister said:
We Liberals want neither the kind of amalgamation the C.C.F. advocates nor the kind of amalgamation the Tories secretly hanker after.
This old, dusty, red herring that was trailed around in front of railway divisions in Canada during the last election campaign by these gentlemen is even more significant in view of the recent speech by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) himself, who could speak with better authority than can some of those who are heckling me, in which he said that the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933, making possible unifica-
The Address-Mr. Rowe tion of certain operations in some areas in this country, is an important matter, and that the government had asked the royal commission on transportation to look into it carefully. It was brought down seventeen years ago but they now want the royal commission to study it to find out what it meant; because if it was not a good thing then, he said, we will rescind it now; but if it is a good thing we may apply it to an even greater degree than it has ever been applied before.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend's trend of thought, but I think my memory is fairly good and I do not believe that I said anything that resembles what my hon. friend has just said.


William Earl Rowe: Then I had better read it, Mr. Speaker. It is from the Daily Star; and it will be unique if the Toronto Star is unfavourable to our friends. I do not want to read all of it, but the Minister of Transport is reported as follows:
Mr. Chevrier recalled that the present royal commission on transportation was asked to look into it. If results of the act have been disappointing or it has served its purpose, it might be appropriate to rescind it, he said.
"If otherwise, the government may have to enforce its application to a greater degree than in the past," Mr. Chevrier declared.
That is the Toronto Star.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A good paper.


William Earl Rowe: As this clipping is of no more use to me, I will send it over to the minister; perhaps I had better not, though, as there is another part to which I should like to refer. I will send it over later. As I say, that is the Toronto Star and they do not even misquote me, let alone those to whom they are more friendly. I am surprised to hear that they have done so; but I will accept the reply, and we had better page the Toronto Star. But it is unique, in view of the pre-election talks, and in view of this old red herring that was trailed around among all the railwaymen in order to get votes; and it is unique in view of the fact that we hear current rumours that ten thousand to fifteen thousand men are going to be let out of the C.N.R. service at the present time. It is a matter of increasing concern to them.
Then the Minister of Transport also said in that same speech:
But I am convinced that trucking has gone beyond its economic radius of operations.
May I suggest that it is also a warning to thousands of other people. He said either too much or too little. It is too much when the royal commission is sitting and it is too little if he is going to disband the royal commission, take it over himself and tell us what is not economical.

The Address-Mr. Rowe Mr. Chevrier: Does the hon. member not -is it any wonder under such a clumsy think that, in fairness, he had better read the floundering change of leadership, so far as rest of it?	policy is concerned, that our people are-


William Earl Rowe: No. I am going to send the whole thing over to the minister and let him read it for himself; because he does not believe what I have read.


An hon. Member:: Read the rest of it.


William Earl Rowe: At the moment my time is much more fully occupied than the hon. member's. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) before the election convinced the people that they should expect more than this because, speaking in Moncton, he said:
We are a government which keeps its promises. All points in the Liberal platform will be implemented, if we are returned to power.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And they will be, too.


William Earl Rowe: Give you time. But in a national broadcast-just think this over and compare it with the speech from the throne of the other day-he said:
In 1945 the Liberal government asked for a mandate to maintain full employment and to expand social security and that remains the first aim of the government's policy within Canada.
At the present time we have almost 400,000 unemployed; and in spite of that the social security measures of importance are being hoisted over for another session, to an investigation committee, to see if the pre-election promises were sound or not.
If you do not believe that, ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because he went down to Toronto on February 15 and said that this social security, "for which we have been asked up and down the highways, the sidelines and the byroads of Canada is indefinable, immeasurable and dishonest". He said:
It promises to all by inference, and directly to many, according to locality and interest, something which is capable of a thousand1 interpretations and has no reality.


An hon. Member:: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs?


William Earl Rowe: Yes, the parliamentary assistant, I beg your pardon. But if he is a good parliamentary assistant he should either speak as the minister wishes him to speak, or he should speak in unison with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I would say so. I am not going to hold this house longer.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


William Earl Rowe: I wish to say only this. Despite the potential greatness of this country-and it is one of the greatest countries in the world


George Alexander Cruickshank: Change of leadership!


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, it is better to change leaders than to change leadership, as hon. members opposite are doing. This country needs a different type of unanimity in cabinet circles than has been demonstrated in recent months. It is little wonder that the people are growing restless, doubtful and nervous of the future, when there is such uncertainty of government policy. This is a land which offers more room for growth, expansion and development than any other country in the world, if one keeps in mind all the great resources we have at our command. All we need is a sounder type of unanimous leadership to make this the most prosperous country in the world.
The growth and prestige of our own democratic form of responsible government is not developed on the ruins of such misrepresentation, promises, pledges and drifting expediencies. During these trying days in the world's history, with the dark clouds of uncertainty hanging over many nations, we must face the facts; we must have a more responsible government. We must have more responsibility as individuals, and we must be more responsible in our national life.
We must see that the government accept their responsibility, not only for what they said before the election, but for what they propose to do after the election. I am sorry my time has now expired.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Take your time.


William Earl Rowe: Probably you want me to take the time that was taken up in interruptions. What I do observe is that we have the greatest travelling government the world has ever seen, that Canada has ever seen.


John George Diefenbaker: Peripatetic.


William Earl Rowe: We have the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) visiting Ceylon for the purpose of developing trade; and we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) coming back and telling us that they want conferences in other places. And then when I tried to have him tell us about that in parliament, he does not agree. They want trade conferences; and yet the farther they travel the more trade we lose.
It is a strange picture indeed. They are nice fellows, grand fellows. Whatever the United States says, they do. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this in conclusion: Whether it be called sentimental allegiance or not, in the

light of cold-blooded facts and cold statistics, do not forget that the British commonwealth and the sterling area should be cultivated as the greatest market we have ever had.
No one knows that batter than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). And as a last thing let me say this, even to those who do not wish to listen, that I would urge the party to which the minister belongs, especially for that temporary and seasonal time during which they have a majority, that they should at least start to look east and west, rather than north and south.
It was only last year that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) spoke in Montreal. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke in Montreal, coming to the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture. Others say we must look to the United States of America for a place to market our products. Mr. Speaker, why look to a country that produces the same type of surpluses we produce? Let us remember that it is no reflection upon the United States to say that. The finest relationship in the world is found between Canada and that country-a country we love and a country that seems to love us, a country which, if it went to war, would find us following, a country with which we are closely allied.
But, Mr. Speaker, Far Eastern trade is just as important today in the long-range picture as is the building of aeroplanes for the northern part of this dominion. We need protection in our Far Eastern trade. And if we can develop trade in the Far East, then that will be part of the fulfilment of that great Atlantic charter. If we are strong in our trading relationships in a time of peace, we will be stronger in a time of crisis-and God forbid the time may ever come when that condition will confront us.
I do urge upon the government to stop, look and listen before it is too late. Let them not ignore the problem before them. They all admit it is there now. Then, let them call a British commonwealth trade conference taking in the area of the Far East, and all the sterling area as well, to see what can be done. We have traded with them for three-quarters of a century, and we will continue to play the game. A businessman does not change customers merely because of a temporary shortage of markets or a temporary shortage of some sort. He takes the long-range view. And if my right hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, will reconsider, I am sure he will apply to this situation the same philosophy he has applied in the operation of his own farm. I am sure he will see the long-term advantage, if he will take one more look.
The Address-Mr. Fair
I would also urge that, no matter what our status may be, no matter what the relationship from a national standpoint, the British commonwealth of nations be not sold short. Because they, with the sterling area, still constitute the greatest hope for national prosperity, fuller employment and the fulfilment of the destiny of this great dominion, that destiny to which we have been aspiring. Let him consider that channel of trade, rather than the other channel, no matter how friendly we may be with them in the future.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, may I open my remarks this afternoon by congratulating the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply. They did a good job, when one considers what they had to work with.
Before concluding my remarks this afternoon I hope to be able to explain what I mean by that statement. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) upon his elevation to full cabinet status. Having known him since he came to the house some years ago, I feel the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) showed wisdom in choosing the hon. member for the important portfolio to which he has been promoted, and we shall expect some good results from his administration in that department.
I would refer briefly to one other minister, and not in congratulatory terms, because my reference is to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). We understand he is not enjoying the best of health. With all other hon. members I hope to see him back in his place in the near future, and enjoying good health. He has been carrying a heavy load and, according to figures which have been placed before us, and discussions which have taken place within the last week, it would seem that he still has quite a job on his hands. We hope his health is fully restored and that he will carry on his work in the future as he has in the past.
May I proceed to deal with some matters which are not discussed in the speech from the throne, and I do so because I find it easier to proceed in that way than to deal with some subjects contained in it. May I first of all turn to grants in aid of education. This matter was discussed at length last session and, because of the statement made by the Prime Minister, we felt that it would have been mentioned in the speech from the throne. However, I have been unable to find any reference to it. On another occasion I hope to have an opportunity to discuss this matter more in detail. For the time being I endorse in every detail what was said on Monday last by my leader, the hon. member
266	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair
for Peace River (Mr. Low), in connection with all phases of federal grants to education. I think all hon. members realize that the present taxation powers of the provinces are not sufficient to provide the education required by our children. If we are to have the kind of electorate that Canada should have and is entitled to have we must have better educational facilities. When you have illiteracy you have people with poor judgment and as a result you have poor administration of our affairs. Canada is the best country in the world and there is no reason why we should not have the best educational facilities for our people.
I should like to comment briefly on some of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on February 20. I should like to quote first from page 53 of Hansard where, after dealing with the pulp and paper business, the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
That, X think, is an illustration of a point I might make here. Let us not harm ourselves with fear.
The Prime Minister then went on to deal with the unemployment situation. Then on page 56 we find this:
We must realize that, in order to have profitable and self-liquidating investments, we must have peace in the world and in order to have peace in the world we must do our share in the North Atlantic arrangement.
Those two statements make a person wonder why the Prime Minister has fear in his mind. It will be noted that the defence estimates for this year are for something like $425 million, and yet this is peacetime. We know that conditions the world over are not as they should be or as we would wish, but perhaps there is something more behind the scenes than the common people are allowed to know. The two references to fear by the Prime Minister make me wonder just what is coming that we do not know about. Then I quote from page 59 as follows:
At the same time a significant amount of our industrial raw material and consumer goods requirements is dependent on our finding the United States dollars to meet our deficit there. We are therefore in a vulnerable position on both export and import accounts. That is why the development of our resources, particularly in such things as oil and iron for which we are so heavily dependent on the United States, is of double advantage. It expands our own production income and wealth, and it helps meet the United States dollar problem to which our trade is so vulnerable.
I would remind the Prime Minister that the present government is responsible for many of our difficulties in connection with the shortage of United States dollars. Back in 1945 the Social Credit party consistently opposed the Bretton Woods agreement legislation in every stage and pointed out some of the difficulties that would occur in the near


future. Apparently some of the hon. members thought that we were out in a wood lot somewhere and they cast their vote in support of the legislation on that basis.
In my constituency there is produced the finest grade of oil for use in oil burning locomotives. Because of difficulties, particularly freight rate difficulties, we are not able to dispose of as much of that oil as we would like to. Freight rate discrimination would perhaps be a better phrase to use. The eight per cent sales tax was removed last session and up to that time that was just another discrimination. This question of freight rate discrimination has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I hope in the near future they will take the necessary action to see that this oil field is further developed.
Because of the present shortage of coal the further production of this oil is doubly necessary and the freight rate discrimination should be removed. When passenger train service was curtailed, the oil people at Lloyd-minster offered to give the C.N.R. oil free of charge for the operation of the train service between Edmonton and Saskatoon, but the railroad did not find it possible to accept that offer. Along with many other sections of the country we are still faced with a curtailed train service. I am not going to discuss this matter any further at this time, but I do hope that the coal shortage will soon be relieved and our train service fully restored.
The Prime Minister went on to deal with old age pensions and devoted a lot of time to that subject. We have on the order paper a resolution to set up a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to investigate pension schemes in other countries and possibly make some recommendations. I suggest that before this committee makes its report-I do not expect it will be made until perhaps the next election-we should do something to relieve the distress of certain older people at the present time.
Not long ago an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act was passed providing for an increase of $10 per month, but we failed, perhaps intentionally, to increase the amount of allowable income. At the present time the allowable income for a single pensioner is $600 and for married pensioners, $1,080. In order to have given all these people that $10 increase we should have provided for an increase of $10 per month in the allowable income. Because that was not done many of these people have been denied the benefits of the $10 increase.

In certain cases, perhaps not many, people are denied pensions because they cannot furnish proof of age. Several methods of proving age can be adopted. A birth certificate may be presented, a marriage certificate or the date of joining some organization. However, many people from Europe have entered this country, sometimes coming here in a hurry. Because of what is to us a peculiar spelling of a name other branches of the government are not able to find any record of these people having entered Canada. As a result they are denied a pension because they are unable to furnish proof of age. I have had such cases myself, and I expect that other hon. members have had similar experiences. Where no other proof of age can be found I suggest that the individual be brought either before a medical doctor, who should at least have some knowledge of age, or perhaps before the old age pensions board for the particular province in which the prospective pensioner resides.
In my opinion-and I think it is admitted by every fair-minded person-the present pension of $40 a month is not sufficient to keep our old age pensioners. Like all other Social Crediters, I believe we should have a minimum of at least $50 per month, and that the age at which the pension is payable should be reduced from where it is at the present time because many of our people, particularly those working in industry and on farms, reach the end of their working days long before they attain the age of sixty. I think unemployment figures will show that when people reach a certain age they are not wanted any more. Employers just do not want them. Where are these old people going to get work? During their lifetime they have contributed their share to the building up of the country, and the country should now see to it that they are provided with a pension that will keep them in reasonable comfort during their old age.
At the last session the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) made a suggestion that the sales tax be removed on hearing aids for old age pensioners. We fully endorse his suggestion, and I would add to it dental and optical equipment. The prices of these things are certainly far too high at the present time and we should be able to afford the loss of the eight per cent tax on these articles. Then we have another class of people to whom I referred at the last session, and to whom I hope to refer again later on, the physically incapacitated. Many of us who are in possession of all our faculties, mental and physical, find it difficult to make a living, and these people who are physically incapacitated through no fault of their own are finding it pretty hard to get along. Their families are responsible for their care, and I believe the government 55946-18a
The Address-Mr. Fair could go a long way towards helping them out. I hope before the session ends legislation will be introduced as to that matter, providing pensions at least equal to old age pensions.
Turning to agriculture, I feel that in the past many people have not given the industry the consideration to which it is entitled. I have here an editorial to be found in the Rural Co-operator of January 24, 1950, a publication printed in Toronto. It refers to a speech by Louis Bromfield, novelist, farmer and internationally famous conservationist, to the Ontario crop improvement association, and reads:
A "more detestable man never lived than Hitler", he said, "yet Hitler did utter one truth. He said Germany was fighting because it didn't have enough living room and it didn't have enough to eat. That was the true cause of the last two great wars. Naziism was only the political manifestation of that profound economic cause."
The editorial goes on to say:
If we accept that explanation, and many will, we are at once faced with the question: What are we doing today to make sure that no people in the world shall ever again have that cause or excuse for going to war? Is reduced farm production, in terms of international relations, a practical policy to follow? Could not any country with a farm surplus better afford to give it all away at any expense than run the risk of a further conflict with all its staggering cost in money and lives?
In connection with giving away food, I have figures taken from the Alberta wheat pool budget of February 10, 1950, showing that the United States commodity credit corporation on November 30,	1949, had
$3,370,190,000 invested in price support loans or in commodities held. Perhaps that is something we might consider. I have other excerpts from articles that I should like to read for the purpose of building up the case for agriculture. The- next one is a report of an address by Mr. C. H. Millard, also to be found in the Rural Co-operator of January 24. The heading of the article is:
Labor Doesn't Allow for Any Hitch-hikers.
In addressing the Ontario federation of agriculture, Mr. Millard, a director of the United Steel Workers of America, had this to say:
We don't allow for hitch-hikers in the union. Every member must pay his way. We have learned that you must not go about formulating policies unless you are prepared to pay the cost.
Then the article goes on to read:
Mr. Millard, one of the best known labour leaders in Canada, had been invited to tell "Labour's story" to the farm people at the convention.
He stated further:
"Our first objective is to unite all labour people. When we started in at the job of organizing we found the workers badly disunited. They were disunited on the basis of religion, race, fraternity and

The Address-Mr. Fair social barriers. Our next objective was to engage ourselves, with our employers, in the art and process of collective bargaining to ensure an adequate standard of living and good working conditions. Our third objective," said Mr. Millard, "is to win social security for ourselves and our families and to seek to bring about ever higher standards of living." Labour, he said, felt that action on the economic front was not sufficient. Political and legislative action was also necessary if many problems were to be overcome. "We face grave political problems having a bearing on economic problems, particularly in matters of trade."
He went on to say:
Frankly, I am little concerned over the loose thinking of the past few years about the markets for our so-called exportable surpluses. . . . The standard of life everywhere must be raised, here in Canada as well as abroad, so that labour is able to buy the goods the farmer produces, and the farmer can buy ours.
I hope that will be taken into account by many people who have to deal with labour and agricultural policies. To the farm organizations of Canada I would say that it is important that every farmer belong to a farm organization. I would also go a little further and say that it is important for every farmer to attend the meetings of the organizations, particularly those where policy is laid down. It is important that farmers elect the right leaders, and that they see to it day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out that those leaders follow a sound and progressive policy on behalf of the organizations. If that is not done, then we may be led down a road that is not good for farmers, for labourers, or for Canada as a whole. That is a warning I have given to farmers before, and I am giving it again today in the hope that farmers all across Canada will benefit from it. I am not saying that as one who is on the outside because, since coming to Canada in 1914, I have had quite a little to do with farmers' organizations.
I also have a report of an address by Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, speaking before the Ontario federation meeting in Toronto on January 12, 1950. The article reads in part:
"Feeding the world is an international task and must be approached on an international basis," he stated. Farmers in all countries want to remove the needless risks and insecurity in the agricultural industry of the old order; farmers in all countries want to produce for * a known market with a reasonable measure of stability, he said. "More than ever before our price stability in Canada is dependent on price stability in the world market," Mr. Hannam told the delegates.
Then it goes on:
"If Canada had been buying more goods from the United Kingdom during the past few months we would not be having trouble with U.K. food contracts now," Mr. Hannam stated.
"We have tariffs against British woven woollen products, clothing made from wool, boots and shoes,

washing machines and bicycles, to name only a few, and these tariffs are one good reason why there are not more U.K. goods coming into this country."
Then he said that this type of tariff was a subsidy to industry and that farmers should not be criticized for seeking protection for farm products through price supports. I am not going to read any more of Mr. Hannam's statement, but I have something here by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I am glad he is in his seat at the moment, looking happy; and I hope he continues to do his best for the farmers, as he has done in the past. I was pleased to learn that he has no opposition in the cabinet to his agricultural policies, because many people were quite satisfied that the minister would have been able to do better but for some opposition in the cabinet. The statement recently made gives us the assurance that there is no such opposition, and I hope that is correct. Speaking at the Niagara Falls convention on February 1 the minister is reported as follows:	.
Mr. Gardiner said the government has no intention of going into the business of buying and selling, although it proposes to put price support legislation on a permanent basis at the next session of parliament.
However, he added, he is going to do everything he can to get trade contracts without utilizing funds from the price support legislation of $200 million, which he felt certain would be voted again without difficulty.
Meanwhile he suggested farmers set up strong cooperatives and distributing agencies in the marketing of produce throughout the provinces.
And a little later:
While it was a tribute to his department that farmers apparently felt pleased at the distribution of food products under emergency conditions during the war-
I might' interject that while they were satisfied with the distribution they were not satisfied with the financial return.
-those conditions no longer applied. The job no longer could be done from Ottawa.
The minister said he also wished to dispel rumours that he is meeting opposition from the cabinet in his efforts on behalf of the farmers.
Mr. Gardiner said farmers cannot expect floor prices to be set at the highest level prevailing during the last three years. In most cases, the price was set about 10 per cent lower than the highest level.
Then apparently he went out' to Alberta, that province where the sun shines all the time, and at a meeting in Lethbridge had this to say:
"During the last year, or year and a half in some cases, we have been asking all consumers in Canada to make up to the farmer for what he lost during our price controls . . .
"We have no difficult surpluses with any of our farm products. We are not in the period yet when we should feel down in the dumps on farm prices."
Mr. Gardiner declared that the only way farmers could succeed in the west, or in all Canada, was to produce to the limit of their capacities the farm

products which they could best produce, especially for the domestic market. Until Britain reached its objective, possibly at the beginning of 1952, of accumulating $2 billion in dollar credits so she could restore her trading to normal levels, Canadian farmers must put their operations on a sound basis. When Britain could again trade freely the Canadian farmer, he felt sure, would be able to compete successfully against any country in the world for British markets.
I think that will serve as a foundation for what I propose to say a little later. When I came to this country thirty-six years ago I remember that the farmers worked anywhere from ten to sixteen hours a day, and even longer during some of the busier seasons. At the same time organized labour was working fifty to fifty-five hours a week. Today we find the farmers still working the long hours they worked then, while organized labour in many cases has brought down the work week to forty-four hours, and is now seeking a further reduction to forty hours. In my opinion that is not too bad. At the same time the farmers have no guaranteed pensions, and no guarantee of any kind if the weather is not kind to them; they have no holidays with pay. Today organized labour has its pension schemes; it has holidays with pay; and in most cases the workers have better homes than the farmers, with electric lights, bathtubs, electric washing machines and things like that. I say to labour it is a good thing they have those things, because the country can produce them and through their organizations they have been able to obtain those benefits for themselves. But what about the farmer; does he have all those conveniences and those guarantees of security? He has not. Many people blame the farmer for the high cost of living. In the Manitoba Co-operator of January 5 I saw a short sentence which may give us an idea of what brings about the high cost of living:
On Friday, December 30, retail price of No. 1 back bacon was 98 cents per pound at three Winnipeg retail stores, and 77 cents per pound wholesale. The bacon comes wrapped in one-half pound and one pound packages, ready for sale over the counter, for which the retailer takes 21 cents per pound as his mark-up, or 27-3 per cent. The same is true of some other prepared meats. A quick serve whole ham retailed at 67 cents for which the wholesale price was 47 cents, or a mark-up of 42'5 per cent. A regular ham retailed at 60 cents, the wholesale price being 39 cents, a mark-up of 53-8 per cent.
These things contribute to the high cost of living. In many cases the farmer had nothing whatever to do with it, because during the peak prices he was getting 36 cents a pound for Wiltshire sides. That was not live weight; that was dressed, delivered at the seaboard.
In the past we have had many contracts with Britain. Only a few months ago the Minister of Agriculture and some of the other ministers told us we would not be able to renew those contracts. Since those
. The Address-Mr. Fair reports were circulated in the press and over the radio there has been a great deal of discontent among our farmers; but we are told that by some good luck or in some way contracts have been entered into again this year for certain quantities of bacon and cheese. They could not renew the egg contract; I guess the British people are getting their supplies somewhere else. In spite of all the statements that have been made by the cabinet ministers I feel that we have suffered a definite loss in our markets in Britain. I have here the report of a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Canadian chamber of commerce in London in December, 1948. I should like to read part of it, because I think it gives his attitude toward our dollar system and other things as well. Speaking of the 1949 contracts he said:
I am not making these statements to be critical of the United Kingdom government or its agents.
I am making them to impress upon you the fact that the British people want our bacon, want our eggs, want our beef, want our wheat. I am making them to impress upon you that if dollar requirements had not intervened we would have been in a position to send you in 1949 over 300,000,000 pounds of bacon, nearly 200,000,000 pounds of beef,
80.000.	000 dozen of eggs, several hundred thousand barrels of apples, thousands of bushels of beans and much jam, none of which your traders feel you can afford to have from us because of the dollar shortage. We cannot sell the apples, beans, jam and salmon to anyone at any price under the present dollar arrangements and for the moment we are finding it impossible to dispose of millions of bushels of linseed at 30 per cent less than you are paying others for it.
They are taking 140,000,000 bushels of wheat and
50.000.	000 pounds of cheese from us because they must have them and we appear willing to provide them for fewer dollars than any other will supply them.
All this is bringing me to wonder if an unknown economist, or was it an Abraham Lincoln or some such individual as Churchill, was not right when he said: 'That he would rather have the money in his pocket tied to the unthinking inanimate substance called gold which cannot change its mind than to the manipulations of some small group of crackpots who fancy themselves as economists or statesmen.'
The minister never told us to whom he was referring, but I should like him to tell us whether he was not referring to those economists they have in the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada. I think I am right in suggesting that those are the crackpots to whom he had reference.
Further along in his statement, he said:
I am not convinced that this latter statement is correct, but I am convinced that the world is not in any state of mind where it can be expected to agree that the manipulation of any system or systems of currency is going to be allowed to interfere with the will of those who have emptjr stomachs when it is preventing surpluses of food to get to them. It might be a good thing for everybody if they would close down the United Nations; meetings long enough to permit of the United Kingdom and United States experts getting together and settling some basis upon which dollars and

The Address-Mr. Fair , sterling can be converted to allow nations like Canada to produce food to feed the starving millions and distribute it. If that cannot be done then they might provide some means by which we can have an opportunity to fill our country with working people to develop the resources the world needs for its war and other machines, that they may eat the surpluses already piling up but which we are not permitted to sell.
I see that my time is slipping away, so instead of dealing with the world organization as I intended, I shall refer members to the speech made by the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) on Thursday last, in which he dealt with the whole matter. At that time he showed that the money experts or crackpots had misled the delegates to the meeting of the world organization which considered a plan for the distribution of food. Today we are not allowed to supply that food to the hungry people of the world.
One day last week the member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) contradicted a statement made by the member for Souris (Mr. Ross), when he said that during recent years agriculture had suffered a loss of $2 billion because of government policy. I am not sure that I am prepared to go as far as that because I have not calculated the loss. I can say, however, that for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 the farmers' loss on wheat sales alone amounts to slightly more than $508 million. If the hon. member for Yorkton wishes to challenge that statement, we shall see about it. I have the government figures to bear out what I say. As a result of the losses the farmers have suffered since the outbreak of war, and because of certain things that were done owing to the war, I am suggesting that the support prices be fixed at the 1949 level for a couple of years at least. I do feel that is not an extravagant request, because during that ten-year period since war broke out the farmers have paid rather expensive insurance premiums to guarantee themselves those prices in the future.
As I have said before, the industries receive subsidies by way of tariff protection. There is no reason in the world why farmers should work approximately twice as many hours as the people in other occupations, and have a much lower standard of living in most cases, yet be refused price support. I feel that at the present time, or any time for that matter, there is no need for gloom among the people of Canada, provided their affairs are properly administered. It may mean we shall have to have another government in order to ensure that proper administration. If it is necessary, let us have that change. Last year, I believe we had a national production of approximately $16 billion. Last week we were told that it is expected the national production for 1950 will amount to $16,250 million. We are not

working to the limit, by any means, as will be seen from the figures on unemployment that have been recited in this house during the past two weeks. If those people were put to work, production could be increased to a great extent. I feel that the farmers of Canada have done their share of the producing, and they want to know now what the government is going to do about its share. As I said before, if the government is not equal to the job, then let us dismiss the government, and dismiss these crackpot money experts in its service. We Social Crediters have a policy that will, to a large extent, eliminate the difficulties in this and many other countries.
Since the wheat board legislation terminates at the end of July, I believe some legislation should be brought in at this session to continue the operation of the wheat board. I would suggest that, by legislation or some other means, the grain exchange should be eliminated before it has another chance of starving many of the unsuspecting farmers of the western provinces. The grain exchange has had its day, and has brought much misery. I want the government to take effective measures, by legislation or otherwise, to rid the country of this scourge of pests.
Social Credit has got a policy, not only for agriculture but for other industries as well. For agriculture we propose, first, a home market constantly supplied with purchasing power. Many people claim that is not necessary, that we should just let things continue as they are. People will continue buying until they have used their money, and then, if they want to go hungry, that is up to them. Many people, however, are not able to find better jobs. If purchasing power were assured, you would not have the troublesome surpluses that have been built up in some parts of Canada even today.
The second point is a compensating price discount technique for ensuring fair prices to producers without causing inflation. Number three is a two-price system to work in conjunction with an international commodity clearing house to guarantee parity returns to farmers. Number four, extension of export markets and acceptance of nonconvertible sterling as a means of recapturing and retaining British and European markets. Number five, provincial-dominion producer marketing boards to serve as a foundation for Number 6, a permanent Agricultural Prices Support Act. Floor prices should be established at a level which would enable farmers to get along.
I see that my time has expired, so I shall discuss many of the other subjects I had in mind as the days of the session go by.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: May
I first, Mr. Speaker, congratulate the mover (Mr. Larson) and seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This has become a customary opening for those who rise in this debate. I wish to assure them that the sentiments are none the less sincere, because they have performed their task well. They have shown that they have ability as well as good training for the office they now occupy.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his choice of the gentleman who now occupies the post of Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (Mr. Harris). It must be gratifying to the minister to see how well his appointment was received by members of all parties in this house. He is a man of ability and judgment, and it is to be hoped that he will not fall prey to the fantastic plans of those who would open wide the doors of our country and even finance the admission fee at a time when we are experiencing in certain regions of the country temporary difficulties in finding employment for those who were born in Canada or who have been here for a considerable time. In a country such as ours, immigration is an important topic, and although I do not join with those who believe we should not let anybody in, I think our policies in the matter should be carefully weighed and that we should not forget that the timing of a measure is often as important as its provisions. I feel quite sure, however, that with the first Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) we may expect all the guarantees and the caution that a man of his judgment and intellect would consider advisable in the matter.
While I am distributing congratulations, I think it might be in order also to congratulate the government, and especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), on proposing the appointment of a committee to examine and study the best possible method to ensure security.
A moment or so ago the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), in his speech, objected to that method and said that the government had made promises but instead of fulfilling them was just appointing a committee. I cannot see what is wrong in setting up a committee. It is the democratic way to act, for the government to give to all parties in the house an opportunity to study a question before a bill is brought before the house. We oftentimes complain that we are faced with a measure without members having a chance to express their views before the government has already committed itself, sometimes even-in detail, to a given proposal. I think the government is to be congratulated on taking the steps it is now taking. Unless there is a
The Address-Mr. Picard change in the motion, however, I must express deep regret that the government has not seen fit to heed the pleas and requests made by many hon. members and in which I have repeatedly joined the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), that consideration be given to the possibility of setting up a system of pensions for invalids. For a number of years the hon. member for Terrebonne has proposed a resolution to this effect, and he has done so again this year. His resolution is on today's order paper and reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should during the present session take into consideration the advisability of including in their social security program a system of allowances to every person, without any sufficient income or means of support, who, by reason of an injury, accident, congenital infirmity or incurable disease, is at a disadvantage in seeking or obtaining employment, or incapable of providing for his subsistence, and whose age prevents him from benefiting by the social security legislation now in force.
On a number of occasions I have spoken on a resolution of that nature or one in nearly similar terms, not only because of the knowledge I have of conditions in my own constituency but because, from year to year, each time that I rose in my place I have received a flood of correspondence from all over the province, or from those parts which had been reached by the press which reported my speech. From those letters I have learned of the sad situation of so many unfortunate people. In a speech a year or so ago, by -comparison with countries in which such plans exist, I established -that the amount necessary to cover such a pension scheme would not be exaggerated. Today, however, I have other subjects to deal with, and I shall not go any further in the matter than to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to consider the advisability of widening the scope of the reference to the committee so that, at the same time that it considers the question of old age pensions, it may consider pensions for invalids.
There are rumours that there might be in the offing a conference between the federal and provincial health authorities on the question of aid to incurable persons. I wonder if that includes a scheme of pensions for incurables. If that is so, it is all to the good. Even if such- a conference is planned, I do not see why an opportunity should not be given to the members of this house, at the same time as they discuss the question of old age pensions, to express their views on the question of pensions for invalids. This question has *been brought here time and again. As I said a moment ago, the sad plight of these people cannot be overlooked and cannot, for much longer, be left without special consideration by the government.

The Address-Mr. Picard
Many countries now have such schemes. In some of them they are contributory; in others they are just outright pensions such as we have here up to this moment for the old people. But be it one way or the other, either outright pensions as we have now for the aged or a contributory system, with special allowance or special provisions for those who are born invalid, and never had any occupation of any sort, something should be done but it might be made contributory for those who have an occupation and later become invalid.
As it is one minute to six, Mr. Speaker, and I am about to change the subject of my remarks, I should like to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-Philippe Picard: Mr. Speaker, loyalty to those who have made it possible for me to stay in this house for the last ten years, loyalty to those who remained loyal to me at the last general election despite, I might say, the venomous attacks of my opponents, prompts me to devote much of my attention to the future of Canadian agriculture. Eighty-five per cent of my constituents toil and sweat on the land to get from it their daily subsistence, and that of their families. I make my concern the fate of these men and women who, for the great part, toil on the farms, work on the farms handed down from generation to generation in the same families or who, as the younger sons of such families, have ventured into the forests and wrested from nature that lot of land that will become the fertile patrimony of their sons and grandsons.
This is why time and again during these last years I have tried here to explain the point of view of the Quebec farmer. That is why I have endeavoured to understand their problems and to make suggestions which I have thought would produce beneficial results for them. I have never known personally their hardships. I cannot say I have ever shared their tasks, nor can I claim to have an actual or even an indirect experience of their difficulties. But as they kindly accepted me in 1940, as one of them, to speak in their name in this House of Commons, and as they have twice since then renewed the expression of their confidence in me, it is natural that I should devote a considerable part of my activity to the study of the conditions, local, national and international, which may affect their welfare.
I feel it my duty, for these reasons, to express here some of these thoughts which have resulted from the consideration I have


given to the fate of Canadian agriculture as regards especially the necessity of finding markets for our agricultural surpluses.
One of the most important matters affecting the economic life of our country at the present time is the marketing of these surpluses of our agricultural products, both as to prices obtainable and the quantities for which we might find buyers. The situation as it stands today is discreetly mentioned in the speech from the throne in the following words:
Circumstances outside Canada have been responsible for some downward adjustment in the price of farm products.
And later:
Continued difficulties arising out of the worldwide dollar shortage have resulted recently in reduced purchases of a number of our export products.
These two apparently innocuous statements refer to a problem much vaster and of much greater consequence to our economy than these guarded words may indicate. The whole of our agricultural development and much of our national progress hinges on the successful disposal at reasonable prices of our food surpluses. Not only as a representative of a rural constituency, but from a firm conviction that the well-being of the country is dependent upon the healthy condition of our agriculture, I feel it my duty to devote my time tonight to a consideration of these problems and of the possible remedies to be applied.
Before looking into what the problem has in store for us, it would not be fair not to outline, even if briefly, what has been the result of the government's agricultural policy over the last few years. This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) spoke about low prices. Can he find at any time under any administration by his party such prices as we have had under a Liberal administration for the last few years? I do not have to go even as far as the war years which, admittedly, have been years most profitable to Canadian farmers in general. But we have figures for the four years following the war, from 1946 to 1949, for the five products upon which agriculture generally depends for its prosperity-wheat, hogs, cattle, milk and eggs.
In this connection I should like to quote from an address delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on January 31 last-and I would ask hon. members opposite to take note of these figures, because they are official. On that occasion the minister said:
During the four years since the war we have marketed on an average 90 million bushels of wheat.

more per annum than in the four years before the war, which is approximately one-third more. During the four years since the war we have marketed on an average 345 million pounds more pork per annum than in the four years before the war, which is approximately one-half more. During the four years since the war we have marketed 370 million pounds more of beef per annum than in the four years before the war, which is above one-half more. During the four years since the war we have marketed two billion pounds more milk per annum than in the four years before the war, which is one-eighth more. During the four years since the war we have marketed 150 million dozen more eggs per annum than in the four years before the war, which is more than 60 per cent more.
Prices on those five products will average at least 65 per cent higher. The difference is best represented in the gross farm income in the last four-year period compared with the preceding period. The average annual total for the last four years is $2,133 million and for the previous period $650 million.
For the benefit of those who prefer the net income figures they are, for the last period $1,305 million and for the previous period $435 million. The gross income or the net income is more than three times in the last four-year period what it was in the four-year period before the war. It would appear that it will continue at that average for at least another year, and thus give us the best five years in our experience.
There is no way in which the pessimists can figure us into depression or difficulties up to the present.
Mr. Speaker, let us now see the situation as it is today. That was the situation up to that moment. Let us see what it is now. Again I quote from the same address by the Minister of Agriculture:
At the end of 1949 the three most important contracts are still in existence. The bacon contract continues so far as delivery to the British is concerned for the entire year of 1950, but so far as guaranteed returns to the farmer is concerned, until July 1, 1950.
Under it the government agrees to take delivery of A Wiltshire sides at $32.50 a hundred and to deliver to Britain 60 million pounds at $29 a hundred. If the plan works as intended the farmer is assured a floor price for hogs approximately 2 cents a pound more than we are obtaining for what goes to Britain. This means that the farmer will get about one-tenth of the return over and above the British price from the treasury of Canada, and the other nine-tenths directly from the consumer. $29 a hundred is $2 a hundred more than we received in 1947. It is more than we have received in any year excepting 1948 and 1949.
The farmer has been netting more for some months, under this plan, than he could have obtained in any other way. His price will still be higher than I have been able to find farmers getting in any country, except Britain. These higher returns have been justified because at an earlier time he is presumed to have taken less than he might have secured.
The wheat and cheese contracts are still in existence. The wheat contract ends July 31, 1950.
We are now negotiating.
The cheese contract has been renewed for one year at five cents a pound less than from April 1, 1948, to December 31, 1949, but it is the same price as was received in 1947 and five cents a pound
The Address-Mr. Picard more than in any year before 1947. The government has subsidized the price by three cents a pound and pays in addition a premium of one' cent on 93 score and two cents on 94 score cheese.
As far as eggs are concerned, the minister has suggested that we cannot hope to sell eggs in any form to the United Kingdom in 1950. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) suggested that the markets were lost. I cannot find from those figures that the markets are lost. I shall come in a moment to the remedies that might be applied to this situation as it may develop. I should like to quote again the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who said on December 14:
In the meantime we will be trying to tide you over the year 1950 with an agreement on cheese which we think we can negotiate and one on bacon to cover the remainder of the 1949-50 natural hog year which we have hopes of being able to negotiate.
Then on January 31, 1950, the minister said:
What about the future of the British market? It is still taking approximately $400 million worth of our farm products and therefore is our best outside market. The prospects are that it will continue to be our best market. If they take all our surplus cheese and 120,000,000 bushels or more of our wheat, they will continue to be, if not our best market, one we cannot afford to be without. Any effort farmers have made to remain in it is worth continuing. We are only going to lose $30 million in 1950 from the British market as compared with what we had in 1949 if we lose all we were asking for and did not get.
The present contracts which we have for commodities other than wheat are as follows: 60,000,000 pounds of bacon with a seaboard value of approximately $17 million. The cheese contract may vary with a possible maximum of approximately 85,000,000 pounds of a value of around $21 million f.o.b. Montreal. That is far from the gloomy picture we got this afternoon from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. We now have covered the * situation as we see it, and as to its causes I cannot find any better words than those contained in an article published in the National Review of October, 1949, entitled, "Canada and the sterling area", by the Right Hon. L. S. Amery. Speaking of Canada he says:
Her economy is, like ours, essentially a highly unbalanced one. It is one of immense surplus productive capacity in respect of foodstuffs, raw materials and minerals. However great her industrial development-and she is destined to be one of the world's great industrial powers-the immense area of her agricultural lands and, even more perhaps, the vast and scarcely tapped mineral resources of the great pre-Cambrian rock shield that covers half her territory, will make it a matter of generations before she can absorb anything like the whole of her vast primary output. On the other hand her economy is a deficiency economy, temporarily in some elements of industrial equipment, but permanently in respect of all the products of the

The Address-Mr. Picard
southern temperate, sub-tropical and tropical regions. External trade is for her, as for us, both a matter of existence and the essential condition for the fullest expansion of her resources.
It is an oft-repeated fact that we must buy much of what we need in the dollar area and sell most of our surpluses in the sterling area. Most of our surpluses are food products. Although the problem is national in scope, first and above all it affects the Canadian farmer. On this subject I again quote the Minister of Agriculture in an address delivered at the fifth session of the food and agricultural organization conference held in Washington on November 24, 1949, when he said:
Thus, in relation to some other exporting countries Canada has an economy which is particularly dependent upon exports-both from the point of view of the volume and the consequent reaction of Canadian prices to changes in world prices.
And again:
It is essential for us to export 75 per cent of our wheat. Unless our exports can be maintained we cannot continue to purchase large quantities of goods from the United States and the United Kingdom. We should purchase from other countries, including those two, such goods as they can produce at lower costs than they can be produced in Canada.
And again:
The importance of agricultural exports in our economy places Canada in a unique position. Products of farm origin, while below wartime levels, still represent a substantial part of total exports, and of these wheat alone accounts for about 15 per cent. Canadian farmers, therefore, are still vitally concerned with world markets and are fearful lest monetary difficulties and other trade obstructions deny them entry to their natural market which is the market of Great Britain. We are the nearest of all countries which supplied them in wartime. We still want to supply them until their needs are satisfied. If we did that we would not have any marketing problem in those products which they required from us during the war.
I agree with what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said this afternoon that the British market ought to be cultivated. What I cannot understand is why he complains that prices for wheat were fixed during the war. I cannot understand why one of the leaders of the Tory party is objecting to what was done in the hope of keeping the British markets after the war and helping Great Britain during the war. He has talked much this afternoon about the speeches made during the campaign by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Agriculture. He touched upon almost everything except the North Star, which was made such an issue by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) during the campaign. I cannot help but think of the success that crowned the efforts of the government and I think the same thing will be true one day of the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture in attempting to solve this situation.
With regard to the reasons for the shrinkage last year in our exports to Great Britain the minister made a statement which brings me to the next part of my remarks. He said:
This was not because the United Kingdom did not want our cheese-and many of our other products- but because she did not have the dollars to pay for it. If we could remove the one difficulty of lack of dollars we would have solved many of our problems.
As to the remedy, the minister stated that it would be threefold. First, he referred to the fact that we have lent Great Britain $1,250 million, the expenditure of which was intended to be spread over until 1952; second, we are encouraging purchases in Great Britain for dollars; and, third, we are discouraging the purchase of some commodities from the United States.
I shall try to demonstrate in the third part of my remarks that there is another field which the government does not seem to have explored. I shall come to that in a moment, but first I should like to make a last quotation from the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. I may be accused of quoting the minister too often, but 1 admit that I have a weakness for him. Of all the experts in agriculture in Canada he is the one who has most consistently been right in the past and is the one upon whom we can most depend in the future.
Politics aside, I am deeply convinced that Canada has been most fortunate in having as Minister of Agriculture for the past 15 years a man who was so qualified to direct its agricultural policies. The minister has weathered many storms and he has met with outstanding success. He is not the type of man who seeks praise nor does he like empty compliments, but I think in all justice and equity it is appropriate to recognize his outstanding ability and the eminent services he has rendered, both to his country since he has been in office and to the allied cause during the last conflict.
Although the foregoing has been truly said without any political intent, I may add that the fact that he is one of the true Liberals in this house and in the cabinet far from detracts from the personal admiration I have for him.
To get back to the subject of my remarks, I wish to repeat my last quotation of the minister.
If we could remove the one difficulty of lack of dollars on the part of Britain we would have solved many of our problems.
This seems to be substantiated by the conditions prevailing during the war when we supplied the United Kingdom with the necessary amount of dollars to secure in Canada what was needed in the way of food and armament. Let us examine therefore the summary of balance of payments transactions between

Canada and the sterling area, mainly the United Kingdom, from 1940 to 1945. We find that total current expenditures in Canada on account of the sterling area amounted to the fantastic sum of $10,430 million. The expenditure of such vast amounts has evidently boosted the Canadian economy and accounts for much of the wartime prosperity for those six years. Sales of food products to Great Britain amounted to $2,290 million. To facilitate an understanding of my argument, I ask the consent of the house to include at this point in Hansard a short summary of the balance of payments above mentioned as taken from page 38 of the Canadian Balance of International Payments, 1926 to 1948.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Philippe Picard: 
Mr. Brooks:: Why not take her shirt?


Louis-Philippe Picard: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said that we should do as much as we can to help Great Britain get the necessary dollars to buy more of our products. I hope he will agree with the proposal I am about to make which will show that she can get the dollars for that purpose. In 1939 British investments in Canada amounted to $2,476 million, and in 1947, the last year for which I could get figures, they stood at $1,642 million. I have already outlined, when I spoke on the mutual aid bill on May 11, 1943, that the so-called repatriation of Canadian National Railways bonds was just a shifting of figures from private shareholders to the Canadian government, but at the time I advocated that we should avail ourselves of a provision contained in the mutual aid bill which read:
That the governor in council may determine the terms and conditions upon which such war supplies

The Address-Mr. Picard are made available to any of the united nations and may require in certain cases payment or repayment in kind or property or reciprocal action or provision of supplies or other direct or indirect benefit as may be deemed appropriate.
I held at the time that Great Britain should buy all the Canadian securities held in that country and turn them over to the Canadian government. This was no extraordinary procedure. It had been followed as to United States securities held in Great Britain and in that regard I wish to quote from a report published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin reading as follows:
At the beginning of the war, in August, 1939, the British owned about $950 million worth of United States securities.
Summarizing the balance of the quotation, between that time and the end of 1940 they had liquidated $334 million, and of the remaining $616 million $389 million were either sold or were pledged to the reconstruction finance corporation against loans that government corporation made to Great Britain during the period January-August, 1941. Another $60 million were held to be pledged with the reconstruction finance corporation at September 1, 1941. This left $167 million in securities which had not been repatriated between that time and the end of 1943.
The same thing was done by Great Britain as regards Argentine securities held in Great Britain. I was not the only one to advocate that at the time. The Financial Post on September 30, 1939, had foreseen the move as inevitable. It even quoted from a government statement dated September, 1939, which ended with the following words:
In the first instance Canada's assistance in supplying food and ammunition to Great Britain will probably involve repatriation of Canadian securities held in London and, at a later stage, the granting of credits.
That was in September, 1939, more than ten years ago, but there are still $1,642 million of Canadian securities held in Great Britain on which we paid during the six years of the war $357 million, and on which we were still paying in 1947 $53 million per annum. However, credits and even gifts were granted before repatriation was asked for. It is evident that some financial experts have changed their minds between the first declaration of the government and the time when the policies were definitely established.
Yet had we then acted as the United States and the Argentine did, we would be one step further in the logical solution of our railway problems, which were mentioned this afternoon by my friend from Dufferin-Simcoe, since the government would have acquired free of charge the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway which we are letting drift into United States hands. In 1937 54-89 per


cent of the common or ordinary shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway, representing $175 million, were held in Great Britain as well as 95-09 per cent of the preferred stock, $133 million, and at least $285 million of the company's bonds. If in return for our gifts of $3 billion Great Britain had acquired and transferred the C.P.R. securities amounting to $593 million, she would have had still to thank us, and the first step in the solution of our railway problem would have been made at no further cost to the treasury, a substantial improvement over what was done in the days of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk railway.
Even if there is no excuse for not repatriating these securities during the' war, the opportunity is still there of using this $1,642 million to good advantage. Here comes my suggestion to help solve our marketing problem. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said:
If we could remove the one difficulty of lack of dollars . . . we would have solved many of our problems.
This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said, "Let us help Great Britain get the dollars". To this I answer that Great Britain has a potential fund of over one and a half billion dollars to purchase Canadian goods which, distributed over a period of years, would ensure Great Britain of her necessary supplies and Canada of her necessary market.
Before examining a method of effecting an orderly repatriation of these securities it may be worth while to investigate the nature of these values. I will just give an outline of what they are. Canadian bonds held in Great Britain in 1946, mainly government and municipal, amounted to $105 million; railways and utilities, $315 million; corporations, $97 million; common stock holdings amounted to $675 million, most of which was in railway issues. The balance of $357 million represented British direct investments in Canadian branches, subsidiaries and other companies controlled in the United Kingdom.
The technique of such a repatriation can easily be established by the Bank of Canada and the foreign exchange control board. The British government knows where these securities are. They have been registered, and they might actually buy them at a price equivalent to their market values. Owners might receive all or part of the purchase price by way of sterling bonds. The securities could then be handed to the Bank of Canada which, with the foreign exchange control board, has facilities for their orderly liquidation on the Canadian market. Some of them could even be sold on the United States

The Address-Mr. Picard
market if necessary. Some may say that in this way the ownership of more of our industries would pass to the United States. I do not see that we would be any worse off than if these securities remained in Britain; at any rate the same result is achieved by the private sale of Canadian securities by the British on the United States market, although with the proviso that each time a security is sold it is credited to the British account here in repayment of the loans already made.
No better example could be found than that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which I mentioned a moment ago. In 1937, as I said before, Britain held 54-89 per cent of the ordinary shares of that company while the United States held 22-22 per cent. According to the 1949 report of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the last report we have, as of December 31, 1948, Britain held only 37-49 per cent of the stock of the company, which meant that these securities had been disposed of privately. At the same time, however, the United States held 43-41 per cent of the stock. Thus control of the Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of having been given to us outright, now is passing into United States hands. If any such liquidation had been part of a marketing deal at least we would have derived some benefit from the transaction.
Furthermore, having control of the Canadian Pacific pass into United States hands might very well have a considerable repercussion on the finances of the Canadian National. What if a powerful United States empire, such as was built a few years ago by Robert Young of the Chesapeake and Ohio, obtained control of the Canadian Pacific? Such a company could immediately route most of its Canadian business through its Canadian subsidiary, or to be more exact the Canadian company it controlled. It is not to be forgotten that seventy years ago the Canadian Pacific received about as much in the way of subsidies as the companies that now constitute the Canadian National. At that time the company obtained from the government vast areas of land, of which a large proportion still appears to be their property. This might be an added incentive for the country to regain control of the railway, rather than see outside interests profit by the accrued values of such lands, particularly in Alberta.
This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) put the question: How can we sell to the British if they have no dollars? Well, here is a source of dollars which I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member. Of course the main question remains: if there
were no dollar shortage, how much more would the British buy from us? The reason given the public for the curtailment of some of the contracts is the lack of dollars, but it might well be that the matter of price is an equally important factor, since it has been customary for Britain in time of peace to be a tough bargainer, to forget the interests of the commonwealth at large and to think only of herself. This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said, "Don't sell the British commonwealth short". I have here an article from New Zealand which says "Britain is turning back to the empire".- Well, the British act like real businessmen and drive a hard bargain, while we are sentimentalists. I do not blame them for that either. During the war we went so far as to give our wheat to Britain for less than we could have obtained for it elsewhere. That was another sacrifice we made in the hope of gaining the gratitude of Britain and keeping those markets after the war. Most of what we have done, and most of the negotiations the minister has carried on, had as their ultimate aim the retention of those same markets following the war.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hold that we cannot overlook any method which may facilitate the marketing of our agricultural surpluses. Britain appears to be a natural market; in that I agree with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. It is a natural market, but it is increasingly restricting its purchases from us, and Britain will continue to be a tough trader in the years to come. The difference between Britain and Canada is that Britain has the practical sense of doing business in a businesslike way, of fighting wars to ensure either her supremacy or her survival. On the other hand we are sentimentalists, who fought wars in the past more because of the attachment of some of our citizens to their former mother country than because of any actual threat to our country. We have also been in the habit of not daring to ask for what others get as a matter of right, such as the repatriation of our securities, and of disposing of our wheat for less in the hope that gratitude might be our reward. At the time that was a good policy; that was one of the efforts made by the government to ensure those markets after the war; but business is not transacted in that way by Britain. She buys where she thinks she gets the better bargain, be it with yesterday's enemy or tomorrow's potential adversary; and she speaks of imperial loyalty only when she expects it from others.
The moment has come, I submit, to try to impress upon her the advisability of reciprocating in time of peace; this also was suggested this afternoon. We have failed to

The Address-Mr. Brooks
arouse her gratitude; let us try now to convince her that it is in her own best interests to co-operate, that it is in her best interests to trade with us, even if it costs a cent more a pound; and let us provide the dollars she needs by the repatriation operation I have outlined.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow closely the arguments we have just heard from the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). I may say, however, that I agree with his statement concerning social security measures for the helpless. I also agree with what he said as to obtaining markets for our farmers. I cannot agree that the farmers of this country are better off than ever before. I know that in my own part of the country the farmers are paying more for what they purchase than they ever paid; and I also know that never in the history of this country was the cost of living as high as it is now.
Neither can I agree with the statement just made by the hon. member for Bellechasse that we should liquidate all our assets in Britain. One great reason Britain was such a great market for our produce in the past was that she had these assets, not only in this country but all over the world, which made it possible for her to purchase goods from all countries. So I cannot agree with the suggestion that we should take away practically everything she has. During the war Great Britain suffered more than any other country; Great Britain helped practically every ally she had, except the United States; and now we should not strip her of her assets and still expect her to be the great market she has been in the past.
Before entering upon a discussion of the matters contained in the speech from the throne I should like to endorse the tributes that have been paid to my late seatmate, Tommy Church. He was deserving of everything that has been said of him. I do not altogether agree that he was old-fashioned in many of his ideas. I believe that the principles he held represented the feelings of more people in this country than we have been led to believe by some of the statements made in this House of Commons.
I want to add my congratulations also, Mr. Speaker, to those extended to the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did a good job, there is no question about that. I think they will be quite satisfied with the just praise they have received. I wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. (Mr. Picard.]
Harris), who has joined the cabinet ranks. I have congratulated him personally, and all I can say now is that I cannot wish him many long years in the cabinet; but, for the few years in which I expect this government to remain in power, I do wish him every success.
During the debate on the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity is given hon. members, as representatives of the people, to discuss conditions in the country, and to present to parliament the views of their own constituents concerning the need's of the country as they see them. I shall only touch on a few items this evening, and time will not permit an extensive review of them. I might say that the aftermath of the great war left many problems. One of the greatest problems, of course, was the rehabilitation of our returned men. It also left us with problems in the readjustment of industry, trade, and the whole economy of our nation. These problems extend over a long period1 of years, and a wise government prepares for such problems.
After five years of peace, Mr. Speaker, and after the experience of all countries following the first great war, it was expected that the situation in this country would have been well in hand by now. The readjustment should be complete, but unfortunately this is not the case. We are in the midst of an economic situation which has resulted in the worst unemployment problem we have had since the end of the war. Apparently it is growing worse all the time, despite the assurances we have had from government officials. The debate on the unemployment situation, and on the unemployment insurance bill which was before the house, indicated to this house and to the country the grave situation which faces us.
In my own section of Canada, the maritime provinces, the unemployment figures are the second largest for any part of Canada. This is usually the case in the maritime provinces whenever there is a recession. I was greatly surprised upon reading one sentence in the speech from the throne, to the effect that employment and prosperity remain at a high level in Canada. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that is not a fact. Employment and prosperity do not remain at a high level in Canada. This is particularly true, as I say, in the maritime provinces. We in the maritime provinces are the first to feel a recession because our chief asset is the primary producer. We are not secondary producers. Mining, fishing and agriculture are the industries upon which we depend. It is a well-known fact that any country, or any section of a country, which has to depend on primary products is a section which first feels the depression.

I should like to read a short article from the Moncton Times about the situation in the maritime provinces. It appeared a few weeks ago, and is written by J. P. Crossman. It says:
There is an air of grim foreboding throughout the rural areas of Kent county.
I may say that Kent county is one of the counties in the northern part of New Brunswick.
"There is no work in the woods", is the sad tune, and a brief survey of the situation proves this statement to be a fact.
No more does the ring of the chopper's axe or the whine of the saw pierce the stillness of the forest; gone is the feverish activity which had marked the forest industry of this area in past years. Instead, the farmers, the small woodlot owners and the labourers are idle, awaiting a solution to a problem which is of vital interest to their very existence.
That paragraph, Mr. Speaker, represents the situation in a large area of the maritime provinces.
The article goes on to say:
The forest industry is dead.
That is one of our great industries in the maritime provinces.
A slump in the pulpwood market started the decline early in the year and the loss of the British pit prop market had been the final death blow.
As I said a few moments ago, there is no manufacturing in this section of the country. The people depend upon the forests for a living. For years the long lumber which we shipped to Great Britain was the main industry upon which the people of New Brunswick and part of Nova Scotia depended. That market was lost over a year ago. In past years, hundreds of thousands of cords of pit wood and pulpwood have been shipped overseas and by rail. This has been lost as well. The pit prop industry has meant over $9 million a year to the people of the maritime provinces. When an appeal was made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) and to this government to see what could be done about the pit prop industry, the laconic reply was that "pit props were out", and pit props were out, Mr. Speaker. Many of the people in the province of New Brunswick are today unemployed as a result of that.
The people in the northern part of the province of New Brunswick have despaired of any assistance from this government. First, they appealed to the minister from our province. Then they appealed to the local government, but they received no assurance of any action. Today they are taking the matter in their own hands and are sending a delegation to Great Britain to see if they can do what the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the provincial government failed to do for the
The Address-Mr. Brooks people who depend on this industry for a living. It is not only the men in the woods, Mr. Speaker, who suffer as a result of the loss of this trade. There are hundreds of longshoremen in the Miramichi valley, in Richibucto, Chatham and Bathurst, who are also out of work because no pit props or pulpwood have been shipped from the northern part of the province of New Brunswick. In addition to that, the hundreds of men who truck these pit props and pulpwood to the ships are out of employment. The garages have lost business and the merchants have lost business. It is for these reasons that business in the northern part of the province of New Brunswick is practically at a standstill today.
The main reason, Mr. Speaker, for this lack of markets for pit props in Great Britain is the non-convertibility of our currency. For some years, we have pressed for a solution of this problem. If it had not been left to the late date it was, I do not believe we would now be faced with this great problem. A short time ago the Lumbermen's Association met in Montreal, and put forward what they considered might be two solutions for the situation. First, they recommended the lifting of trade restrictions. Second, they said there should be a free exchange of money between countries. I am sure if this could be brought about, Mr. Speaker, it would be of material aid.
I should like to agree with those who have said that the British market is our best market. If that is true for Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is more than true for the people who live in the maritime provinces. For years, we have sold our lumber in Great Britain and in sterling markets of the West Indies. Years ago these were the two great markets for the people of the maritime provinces. Today we have neither of them. We cannot sell to what we call Upper Canada because of the heavy freight rates and the great cost of transportation and also on account of the competition which we have to meet in this market. But if we had the British market and if we had the West Indies market, I believe that the people of the maritime provinces would be prosperous.
I should like to quote none other than a former minister of trade and commerce, Hon. J. A. MacKinnon. Speaking in the city of Saint John a few days ago, when he arrived back from the West Indies, he said:
The people of the British West Indies regret the present trade restrictions with Canada and I heard the proposal advanced that their representatives may approach the Canadian government to see if arrangements can be made whereby this lucrative trade can be expanded.
I hope they do approach our Canadian government, and I hope they come to some

The Address-Mr. Brooks agreement; because I believe it would be of great benefit to the West Indies as well as to ourselves.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we are buying from Great Britain as much as we could and should. It is a sort of habit for some members of the government to blame Great Britain when we cannot sell certain products to her. But are we buying from her as much as we could? I ask this question after reading an article I saw in Toronto Saturday Night a short time ago, on January 10. It had to do with the purchase of television equipment in this country. Great Britain could have supplied this television equipment; but instead of its being purchased from Great Britain, thus giving us a better opportunity to trade with her, it was purchased from the United States. I think the excuse used was that it was not thought that Great Britain could supply as good material. But as this article says, Great Britain has some of the best technical engineers in the world. She is the country which pioneered in radar. She has also been pioneering in television. Other countries are buying their television equipment from Great Britain. If we want to be [DOT]fair and if we want to get an exchange of currency with which to trade, there is no reason in the world why this large order should not have been given to Great Britain, and there is no reason in the world why the government of this country should not set the example with regard to purchasing from her.


Mr. McCann:: Would the hon. member not prefer to have the equipment made in Canada?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is made by the General Electric Company-


James Joseph McCann: Seventy per cent of it is made in the city of Peterborough.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -which is a subsidiary of General Electric in the United States.


James Joseph McCann: Ask your colleague behind you which he would prefer.


George Alexander Drew: Do the ministers mean what they say when they talk about developing trade with Great Britain?


James Joseph McCann: I mean employment for Canadians.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This article goes on to say as follows:
"If Canada won't give us a chance to get into new fields like this," said one British official, "there is no hope whatever of closing the dollar gap-or of our buying more from Canada."
We in certain sections of this country are starving for trade with Great Britain. Our government says that, if Great Britain will sell more goods to us, we shall be able to sell

more goods to her. My point is that when there is an opportunity for us to trade with Great Britain, such as there was in this case, it should have been done if the government is sincere in what it says about developing trade.
I should also like to refer to a similar situation in the United States which also emphasizes the point that I am trying to make. For instance, the city of Seattle in the United States wanted to buy some generators and advertised for tenders. The British put in two bids. The Americans put in certain bids. Great Britain's bids were many thousands of dollars lower than the bids in the United States. What happened? Here is what I read from the Christian Science Monitor:
Here is the story of the first really big effort by the British to act on Washington's advice and take advantage of Washington's formal promise:
The bids were opened, disclosing that there had been seven bidders, of whom two were British, and that the two British bids were very much lower than any of the American bids. Lowest bid was by Ferranti Limited at $515,000. Next lowest was by English Electric at $572,000. Lowest American bid was at $720,000, and other American bids ranged up to $1,321,000.
This was the same company, the General Electric Company; and this article goes on to say that certain excuses were made for not buying from Great Britain. The first one was that the distance from the factory in England to Seattle was too great in case of a breakdown. But as the British pointed out, they had a branch office in Toronto which could have supplied service and attended to any breakdown that might have taken place. They also pointed out that they could have supplied eight generators for the same amount that it would cost to get six generators in the United States.
Then when that excuse did not suffice, it was next said that Ferranti has no experience in building generators for use in such remote and northerly climes. Yet at that very same time Ferranti, that great British company, was building generators for Helsinki in Finland, and had been building this sort of equipment since 1889 and sending it all over the world. The real excuse was given to a reporter by the Seattle purchasing agent who said:
I Imagine we would have had considerable reaction from American manufacturers if we had accepted a British bid.
This article goes on to say:
One of the American manufacturers concerned is General Electric, chairmanned by Philip Reed, who as president of the Anglo-American productivity council is a leading advocate of bigger British sales in the U.S.A.
The British ambassador said: "Do you really want to buy our goods, or don't you?"
I mentioned those two cases, Mr. Speaker, because I think they illustrate that there is

The Address
insincerity somewhere in this country and in the United States with regard to our purchases from Great Britain. As I said a moment ago, in my part of the country at least we feel that every effort should be made to make purchases from Great Britain so that we might be able to sell some of the goods we have, on whose sale depends the very livelihood of the people in that part of the country.
I should like to say a few words with regard to a matter which was before the house the other day, namely, the taking off of trains and the purchasing of coal. It is not necessary for me to deal with this matter to any great extent. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has already spoken about it, as has the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), and pointed out that it was not necessary to take off 25 per cent of our trains in the maritimes, and that a million tons of coal could have been obtained by the Canadian National Railways for the service of trains at least in that part of the country. There could also have been coal purchased from these maritime mines for the service of trains in other parts of Canada, had it been looked after at the proper time. The other day the minister said it was only fair, because there was no coal here in Ontario, that all people across Canada should be used alike. That is, because it was not possible to obtain coal for trains here in Ontario we in the maritime provinces, where there is lots of coal, should have our service reduced by 25 per cent.
The city of Saint John and the city of Halifax used to have a midnight train running from Saint John to Halifax, and back from Halifax to Saint John. We had Sunday trains, but these have been taken off. It is hot possible for anyone to travel from either of these two large cities in the maritime provinces from Saturday at noon until Monday at noon.
I do not think such a condition would be accepted' for one moment in any other part of Canada, and in my opinion it would not be inflicted upon any part of Canada except the maritime provinces. I believe it was in 1931 when these trains were taken off once before, and they were off for nearly fifteen years. That was supposed to have been a temporary reduction in our train service. However, they were taken off in 1931 and were not replaced until 1946. I hope the minister will not have the present temporary reduction of service last quite that long.
1 should like to take some time to mention what I believe we need in the maritime provinces. In that part of New Brunswick which has lost its pit prop and pulpwood
-Mr. Brooks business, and where the long-lumber business is out, they need temporary assistance. The government will have to start some public works. But the people down in that section of the country do not want to live on old age pensions, unemployment insurance or mothers' allowances, as they were told by one of the members of the legislature at Fredericton. They want work, and the opportunity to work.
The immediate need, so far as these people are concerned, is a backlog of public works. Towns such as Bathurst, Newcastle, Chatham and others have organized citizens committees, the main object of which is to try to find whatever employment they can for the people living in that section of the country.
Taking the long view of the matter, we want markets for our products. We want the British markets; we want the West Indies market. We also want the development of hydroelectric power in the maritime provinces. In presenting the estimates to the house, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said, as reported at page 198 of Hansard:
In approving the programs for the various departments' expenditures, the treasury board have had in mind the general economic situation in the maritime provinces and the coastal areas of Quebec, and the government's desire to promote the economic development of this general region, which has encountered greater economic difficulties than the other major regions of the country.
We approve of that statement, and we are wondering just what he is going to do in order to improve the economic position of the maritime provinces. I would tell him what we need. As I said a moment ago, we need markets and, secondly, we need cheap electric power.
I was interested today, as I am sure all hon. members were, to hear about the further development of electric power at Niagara Falls. We have no objection to that, although it will cost many millions of dollars, and will have to be paid in part by those of us from the maritime provinces. We are willing to assist in that project. Then the question was asked: "Will this interfere with the development of the St. Lawrence waterways?" And the answer was "no". There will be power developed along the St. Lawrence river. We in the maritime provinces will help to pay for it, but we will not receive one cent of benefit so far as utilizing that power is concerned.
We have vast quantities of power in the maritime provinces which could be developed, and in justice to those great developments taking place in other parts of Canada, I say

The Address-Mr. Brooks it is only fair that we should receive consideration. As I said before, we want cheap power.
At a recent meeting of the maritime board of trade held in Moncton, New Brunswick, the harnessing of the tides in Passamaquoddy bay was the outstanding matter debated. This is a tremendous scheme, and if undertaken would be one of the largest in that section of the country. It would be a joint undertaking, and has already been investigated by engineers of both the United States and Canada and found feasible.
It is estimated that the development of the tides in Passamaquoddy bay would be capable of producing over half a million horsepower of electricity. This gives some idea of the amount of power that would be available for the development of industry in the province of New Brunswick, as well as in Prince Edward Island and parts of Nova Scotia.
It is believed that the completion of this scheme would witness the beginning of an era that New Brunswick has long looked forward to, and with the cheap power developed that section of the dominion could well be placed on a firm foundation for industrial development. The development of this power has been dreamed of upwards of 40 years.
I repeat, if the government wishes to assist, they should give their blessing to the development of a project such as that.
May I now read from the Toronto Star Weekly of November 19, 1949, regarding this same matter. This article was written by J. E. Belliveau, and states:
"Some day down here in Maine we'll milk our cows by the pull of the moon." That's the prediction of a windbeaten, sturdy old Lubec fisherman. He goes on to say, "and over in New Brunswick," which is so close a bush league pitcher with a fair throwing arm could heave a baseball across the channel and hit Campobello island, "there will be industry unthought of today."
It's not so fantastic as it seems, for strong-minded, down-to-earth easterners long since set out to make reality out of man's ancient dream of harnessing the moon by controlling the tides for electric power. For half a century the idea of trapping the tremendous flow of the Bay of Fundy has been actively considered. One of the world's great hydro engineers, Dexter P. Cooper, started to work out its possibilities as early as 1912. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was to become president of his country, watched those gigantic tides sweep through the narrow Lubec-Campobello channel in his boyhood. He, too, dreamed dreams and through youth and manhood held on to them. Then, in the 1930's, he went about making them come true.
The Americans started to develop this project in 1930 but, owing to the depression, they abandoned it. But Senator Brewster of the state of Maine, and Senator Smith-I believe the only lady senator in the United States-as well as President Truman, are pressing for it at the present time. We know

that at one time Canada Objected because it was thought it would interfere with our fisheries. I think that has been disproved. Mr. Emery, who was the mayor of Eastport in the United States, a great fish packer, has said that there is nothing in that at all. I think I should like to quote this gentleman who said:
Our economy is seasonal now, both here and in New Brunswick. Quoddy is our only hope. Every engineer consulted says the power can be harnessed. If it is economically reasonable, we know Quoddy will be built, despite all obstacles. We would like to see it settled once and for all. I'm getting on now, been pushing this for 25 years, and it could do me no good. But I would feel satisfied if I could live to see this magnificent scheme become a reality.
There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter. If the government is sincere in wishing to bring economic benefits to the maritime provinces they, if the United States is agreeable, should undertake this project which would help us most of all, a project which could provide cheap power for our provinces.
I hardly think it is necessary for me to mention the Chignecto canal. I do believe that if this project had been proposed in any other part of Canada it would have been carried out long ago. I hope it will receive careful consideration by this government because it will mean much to the people of the maritime provinces. It is not my intention to dwell at length on this tonight except to say that there is not a board of trade, a branch of the Canadian Legion, a Kinsmen's club or a branch of the Knights of Columbus or any other organization in the maritime provinces which is not one hundred per cent behind the development of the Chignecto canal.
In closing may I say I was pleased indeed to note in the speech from the throne that a bill will be introduced to bring veterans of the British and allied forces resident in Canada within the scope of the War Veterans Allowance Act. This is belated justice and should have been done years ago.


An hon. Member:: It is not done yet.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have not got it yet, but I have enough confidence and faith in our veterans minister to believe that it will be done. As I have said in committee, and as almost every member of the veterans affairs committee has said for many years, these men should have received this consideration long ago. British veterans who fought in the first great war and then came out to this country to raise families who fought in the second great war should receive the consideration to which good Canadian citizens are entitled. I commend the minister for having this proposal in the speech from the throne. I shall

have more to say on it later. It will be rendering justice to these men who have deserved it for many, many years.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, my first words shall be to compliment the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on having been selected by their party for this great honour. The mover, as a young Saskatchewan farmer, in his speech expressed some doubt about the effectiveness of the government's measures to deal with the situation that exists in Canada today. He said, as reported on page 27 of Hansard:
1 feel that I may be open to criticism for not taking issue with the government on some of the matters of a more contentious nature.
I am sure that when he returned to his constituency after the session last year he, along with other Saskatchewan members, was met with criticism of certain actions of the government and expressions of doubt as to the effectiveness of the measures being taken by the government to meet some of the problems facing this country today.
Before dealing further with that however I should like to compliment the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) upon his elevation to the position of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I am sure he carries the best wishes of members of all groups in the house that he may have success in the organization of that new department and in instituting policies in connection with citizenship and immigration which will be of benefit to the country.
It has always seemed to me that we have neglected citizenship in this country. I can remember when I went to western Canada many years ago. Many of the new people who had come to the country who wanted to get citizenship papers generally applied to a political party. Then just before an election, if the party thought they might secure their support, citizenship papers were obtained for them. As a result many of our new citizens felt a greater allegiance to the political party which had obtained their citizenship papers than they did to the country of their adoption. I think the department should have some educational program for our new citizens. When they secure their citizenship papers the people in the community where they live should have some function or social gathering at which these people would be welcomed as new citizens.
Then a word with regard to immigration. It takes a brave person to say at a time when there are 375,000 unemployed in this country that we should have more immigrants. However, let us look at the situation in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Wright Consider the great iron resources in Labrador and northern Quebec. Consider the great resources of nickel in Sudbury and northern Manitoba. Think of the immense resources of oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Yet with all these resources, with the great need we have for development, there are 375,000 unemployed.
Is there any reason for that? Surely there are things to be done in this country which could provide work for the people we have here. What is the situation with respect to our markets? We ship out our resources, in the form of either raw materials or semifinished materials, to Europe to be manufactured into articles which are used here and throughout the world. Then we send food to feed the people who are processing our raw materials.
It seems to me that it would be more sensible if we brought some of those industries to this country, with the people to work in the industries, and processed our raw materials here instead of continuing as we are doing today. We have no markets for our food and yet we are sending our raw materials out of the country to be processed. We are finding ourselves in a position where we cannot get paid for the products that we do ship.
It is a matter of organization, a matter of having a planned economy in the country under which we could not only produce but finish the products from our raw materials. An intelligent immigration policy which would bring industries to this country along with the people to work in them would provide at least a part answer to the problem of markets.
I should like to deal tonight with a matter which I raised the other day in the house at three o'clock. When the report of the Canadian wheat board was tabled I asked if it would be referred to the standing committee on agriculture. Hon. members of the house will recall that in 1947, when the Hon. Mr. MacKinnon was Minister of Trade and Commerce, he told the house that these wheat board reports would be referred to the agricultural committee each year. Unfortunately we have had three years go by without one of them being referred to the committee.
On the tabling of the report the other day I was surprised to see some of the information in it. I know that before the last election the government did not give information to the people with regard to quite a few things that were taking place in this country. Among them is the situation which existed as to the wheat board. I hope no one tonight will take anything that I say as criticism of the wheat board or this method of marketing.
284	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Wright What I am criticizing is the fact that it is quite evident from this report that the government used the wheat board for political purposes before the last election.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Percy Ellis Wright: To substantiate that claim I am going to read from the report itself and then ask members of the house if that is not the case. On page 18 of the report, under the heading of "Bank loans", it states as follows:
In accordance with the provisions of order in council P.C. 919 of February 24, 1949, the initial price paid to producers was increased from $1.55 to $1.75 per bushel basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. This increase became effective on April 1, 1949, and under terms of the same order the board was directed to pay to producers the sum of 20 cents per bushel in respect of deliveries by producers to the board on the 1945-49 pool account for the period from August 1, 1945 to March 31, 1949. This payment involved a cash distribution by the board of $213,445,541.88 which was commenced on April 1. 1949.
I would ask hon. members to note this:
To meet this and other cash commitments, the board as at March 31, 1949, had funds on deposit with the chartered banks totalling $25,051,551.87 and investments in Dominion of Canada a per cent treasury notes in the amount of $40 million.
In other words, they had liquid assets of approximately $65 million to start a payment which involved' over $213,445,000. I continue:
The funds provided from the foregoing sources together with funds received from daily operations of the board, permitted the board to meet its cash commitments from April 1, 1949 to June 8, 1949. On this latter date board funds became exhausted and on June 9, 1949 the board commenced to borrow its daily cash requirements from the chartered banks at the established interest rate of 3 per cent per annum compounded monthly. As at July 31, 1949 loans from the chartered banks totalled $23,795,698.28 and accrued interest thereon to the foregoing date amounted to $3,911.62.
On page 9 it states as follows:
Interest earned by the board on surplus funds exceeded interest paid by the board during the first three years of the five year pool. In 1948-49 interest paid by the board exceeded interest earned by $1,366459.59.
I ask members of the house if they were on a co-operative board, or on any other board of directors in this country, would they start a payment of over $213 million when they only had liquid assets of $65 million with which to meet such payment? There was a great deal of criticism in western Canada, and certain people said the government was bribing the voters there with their own money by the 20 cent interim payment on wheat certificates just before the election. According to this report they were borrowing the money from the chartered banks at 3 per cent compounded monthly to make that payment.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member if he is not aware that every farmers' organization in western Canada, including the pool locals, were asking for that 20 cent payment before seeding, and is he not aware of the fact that there could not be enough money to pay it without borrowing?


Percy Ellis Wright: I want to answer the minister right there. The farmers of western Canada and the pools never asked for a 20 cent payment. They asked for a payment, and if the farmers of western Canada had known-


James Garfield Gardiner: I can produce resolution after resolution where they asked for 20 cents.


Percy Ellis Wright: If the farmers of western Canada had known that the government was going to the banks to borrow the money at an interest rate of 3 per cent compounded monthly to make that payment, when in a great many cases the men who were receiving payment were paying 15 per cent to 30 per cent of it at least back to the government in income tax-


James Garfield Gardiner: Only a week ago my hon. friend asked to have payment made for this year. How does he expect payment is going to be made if you do not borrow money at the bank?


Percy Ellis Wright: I asked that question before we had this report tabled in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: Do you want it withdrawn?


Percy Ellis Wright: I certainly know there is nothing left there to make a payment with now. I know that no sensible board of directors in this country, and no co-operative board, with the facts contained in this report before them, would have made a 20 cent payment last year. They should have made a 10 cent payment and kept the other 10 cents to be made this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are quite satisfied to leave that with the farmers in the drought area who asked for the payment last year.


Percy Ellis Wright: As a result of making this payment it has meant that the farmers of western Canada are paying to the banks several million dollars in additional interest charges on money paid to them, 15 per cent to 30 per cent of which they have had to turn around and pay back in the form of income taxes.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no other way of making payment in the spring when a very considerable part of the crop is still to be sold.


Percy Ellis Wright: A 10 cent payment could have been made with very little borrowing at that time, but to make good fellows of themselves the Liberal government went out and paid

20 cents, and went to the banks and borrowed the money to pay it at the expense of the farmers, not at the government's expense. When the wheat board had money invested in treasury notes they received five-eighths of one per cent interest on it-


James Garfield Gardiner: You got a part of it; they all did.


Percy Ellis Wright: -but when the board went to borrow money they had to pay 3 per cent compounded monthly.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are the only farmer in Saskatchewan who did not know that.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am certain that no board of directors would act in that manner. I am certain that the wheat board did not make that 20 cent payment of their own volition. It was made by order in council of this government, and if the wheat board had been asked whether or not a 20 cent payment was justified they would have said no.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the way it will be made this year, if it is made, or any other year.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the situation with regard to these payments. It was a deliberate use of the wheat board by the government for political purposes. I am one of those who believe in the wheat board. I am one of those who believe that is the proper way to market our grain, but this government tries to give it a black eye-


Mr. Harkness:: Those were the 20 cent votes.


Percy Ellis Wright: -by forcing it do something which any other business organization would not do.


Mr. Siewari (Yorkion):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Percy Ellis Wright: If the hon. member for Yorkton will just sit down he can say what he wants to say when I am finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I must remind hon. members that the member who has the floor is not to be interrupted unless he accepts the interruption.


Percy Ellis Wright: Tell that to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


James Garfield Gardiner: I am finished; go ahead and hang yourself.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has hanged
himself on this issue; I can assure him of that. He will have a hard time explaining it to his constituents in western Canada.
Now for a little while I want to deal with the general marketing situation in this country. From the speeches that have been made so far in this debate it is quite evident
The Address-Mr. Wright that there is a serious marketing situation with respect to our agricultural products. I am convinced that we have four major agricultural products for which we must find markets: wheat, cheese, bacon and apples. These four products represent the four main groups of agriculture in this country; wheat in the grain group, cheese in the dairy group, bacon in the meat group and apples in the fruit group. If we can find sufficient markets abroad for our surpluses of these agricultural products we will have a chance within our own economy to balance our production of the other grains, dairy products, meat products and fruits; but we must find markets for those products.
Some say the United States is a market. Well, anyone who has read of the situation that now exists in that country with respect to these products knows there is no market there, that the United States is in a surplus position with respect to each of these commodities. The only long-time market there has been in the past or there is likely to be in the future for these products is the European market, and more particularly the British market. Our failure to sell these products in that market is, in my opinion, largely due to the failure of this government, immediately after the war, to deal with the British government on a bilateral or exchange basis covering our major farm products. If in 1947 this government had been prepared to accept British goods in payment for these products we could have had some of the long-term agreements which have been made with the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand and Australia. At that time we were not prepared to make agreements of that type; as a matter of fact we had no legislation under which that could have been done. We had the acts which had been passed during the war to authorize the sale of these products overseas. Nothing was certain as to the period of time for which that legislation would be constitutional, or for how long it would be carried on. We were renewing it from year to year in this house. Instead of developing a long-term policy dealing with our agricultural products we simply frittered away those markets and only now the results of what we did in 1947 are beginning to be felt. Those markets are gone, and the only way we can hope to get them back is by some arrangement whereby we can accept in payment for our products either British goods or sterling, which can be invested in other parts of the world.
In his remarks during this debate the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that we should accept sterling for some of our agricultural commodities and
28S	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Wright invest that sterling in other parts of the world. I was rather surprised to read some of the comments that suggestion drew from various people in responsible positions in Great Britain. I have here the report of a statement by "Adelphi", who, by the way, is Beverley Baxter, Canadian-born Tory member of parliament in Great Britain, who states:
The Times this morning publishes a report that the C.C.F. is urging the Canadian government to accept payment in sterling for a large percentage of its exports to the sterling area. I know that such a suggestion must shake St. James and Bay streets to their foundations, but it is difficult to see how the present rot can be stopped if such a plan is not adopted.
Responsible people in Britain realize that, if they are to buy our products, in some way we must provide them with the dollars or accept their pounds in exchange. Then we can invest those pounds in other parts of the world where such investments can be made to advantage. There are plenty of such places, in the Middle East, in India and in other parts of the sterling area where new developments are needed, and where such developments will help stop the growth and spread of communism. But to insist that we can find markets for those products in the United States is not realistic.
In the speech from the throne it is indicated that we are going to do something with respect to floor price legislation. Hon. members will recall that when the present Agricultural Prices Support Act was introduced in this house in 1944 a great many of us criticized it because it was a temporary measure intended to have effect only during the transitional period. At that time we said this should be permanent legislation, and that the act should contain some formula by which we could determine what were fair floor prices. Neither of our suggestions were accepted. This session, however, we hope to do both those things which should have been done several years ago.
There are two ideas with respect to the method of calculating floor prices for agricultural products. In the United States they have used the term "parity". They have accepted the period from 1909 to 1914, I believe, as the base period, and on that they have established parity floor prices. Under their present plan they pay 90 per cent of parity on some agricultural products such as wheat and cotton; on others they pay 75 per cent and on some perishable products I believe the payment is as low as 60 per cent of parity. In Great Britain and some of the commonwealth countries, as well as Canada, we used a different method to establish floor prices. We used as a basis the long-term contract with Britain. Now, however, as these


contracts cannot be renewed, that method of setting a floor has vanished, and we must find some other method. The minister has suggested that the floor will have to be fairly low.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, you did; at the meeting of the federation the minister suggested that the floor could not be established at a level which would meet the average cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that at all, any time or anywhere.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the way the minister was reported in the press; that the floor must be low enough to discourage overproduction of any particular agricultural commodity.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that, either.


Percy Ellis Wright: That was the way the minister's statement was reported in the press. He claims to be misreported so often that it is difficult to know just what he did or did not say, and all I have to go by are the reports appearing in the press. I want to say this, that in establishing floor prices for agricultural products there are two things that must be taken into consideration. These floor prices should be floor prices which are not merely fair to the farmer; they must be established at a sufficiently high level to enable the farmer to maintain the fertility of his soil. Then the farmer can maintain production over a period of years.
If floor prices are established at a low level, merely as a stopgap, it will mean that the farmers will simply mine the soil of this country. That has been done to a great extent for years in this country. It has been done to such an extent in eastern Canada that you can go to the maritime provinces today and find farms that have been abandoned. Go out in the back counties of the province of Ontario and you will see farms that have been abandoned simply because of the low prices for agricultural products. Our soil has been mined to such an extent that it goes out of production. Perhaps that is all right in a country in which you have unlimited soil resources, and where you are opening up new areas. The point has been reached in Canada now where we have not the new areas available. We have reached the point where we have to start building up the agricultural industry of this country on a permanent working basis, on a basis which will maintain the fertility of the soil. Unless we do that, unless we have floor prices which will enable the farmers to farm efficiently and maintain the fertility of the soil, to prevent erosion and to ensure a proper

conservation program for agriculture in this country, we are just building up trouble for ourselves in the future. One of the surest ways we can do this is to set floor prices for our agricultural products so low the farmers will have to continue to mine our soil.
At the last session of parliament, just before the election, the Agricultural Products Marketing Act was passed, under which boards could be set up for the marketing of agricultural products in Canada. I should like to point out, not only to this house but to farm organizations throughout the country, that the farmers themselves have a responsibility in this matter. They cannot expect the government to do something for them which they can do for themselves. The first thing they have to do is to organize their own industry by the setting up of producer boards for the marketing of their particular product. I am however extremely doubtful whether the act that was passed prior to the last election is constitutional, and will give to these boards the power which I believe they will need if they are to be successful.
It seems to me that for any particular agricultural product-let us take hogs for example-if we are to set up boards in this country for marketing, these boards must be set up in each province by the producers in that province. There must be some means, however, by which a central selling agency can be established for the sale of all hogs in Canada. It is not enough to set up a half dozen separate boards with each board having a selling agency, and each agency going out to dispose of that product. If the handling of that product is to be successful, it must all be handled by one board. Not only must it be handled by one board, but that board must keep control of that product until it goes into the wholesale or retail trade of this country. In my opinion, it is not sufficient for the hog producers of this country to set up boards for the sale of their products unless they keep control of that product until it goes into the wholesale or retail trade. It is not enough for them to sell that product to the packers, and then let the packers or cold storage people speculate in that product and make an unfair profit on it.
The Minister of Agriculture himself knows that that is what takes place. When the price of eggs went down last year, he indicated that he was quite displeased with some of the things that had happened in the trade with respect to the marketing of eggs. Last fall, when eggs were bringing approximately 38 cents to the producer, the minister indicated that the consumer was paying 80 cents for the same eggs. Unless these commodity boards set up by the producers keep control of their
The Address-Mr. Wright products and prevent them from falling into the hands of speculators, then I say the boards will not serve the purposes of the producers. As the act reads at the present time, I am rather doubtful whether the boards will have that power. I hope they have, but there is a grave doubt in my mind, and in the minds of many of the agricultural people themselves, as to just how far those boards can go in maintaining control of their product.
It is not good enough to say that these boards should have to take the responsibility for marketing the products when they go outside Canada. I am convinced that we must have export and import boards, controlled by the dominion government, to take control of these surplus agricultural products which must be marketed in the export market. The producer boards have no control over the fiscal policies of this country; they have no control over the tariffs; they have no control over whether dollars will be available for their products when they reach Europe, or the other markets of the world. It is the policies of this government which determine whether those products can be sold when they are exported. This government should take that responsibility, and not throw it back on the producer boards or upon the provinces, as it would appear they are now intending to do.
In this matter of the marketing of agricultural products in the international field, I believe that the government should give serious consideration to backing the food and agricultural organization in its attempt to set up an international commodity clearing house for surplus food products. I was rather surprised to find that the minister, in some of the statements he issued at Washington when this matter was being discussed, indicated he did not believe this commodity clearing house could serve the purpose for which it was intended. On November 25, in the Globe and Mail, the following statement was reported to have been made by the Minister of Agriculture at that conference:
We can see considerable merit, as a long-run development, in the proposal that stocks of food should be held against shortage situations which experience has shown will develop. As has been pointed out in other conferences, however, national governments can, and do, perform this function and we do not see that stocks held by an international agency will, in the short run, contribute to any improvement in the present situation.
The minister has stated here that he believes that is a government responsibility. I hope the government will accept that responsibility and not turn it back on the producer boards or on the province, when it comes to marketing these surplus products in international markets.


James Garfield Gardiner: We carried 600 million bushels of wheat at one time.

The Address-Mr. Wright


Percy Ellis Wright: That is quite right, and I hope the government will continue to support the producer boards or commodity boards that will be set up, with respect not only to wheat but the other agricultural products. I hope they will accept this responsibility for international marketing, which I believe is theirs, but the tendency now seems to be to shelve that responsibility or turn it back to the farmers themselves. I say that the government is quite right in adopting the attitude that the farmers must accept responsibility for setting up these commodity boards for marketing the products within this country. When it comes to the international marketing of agricultural products, however, I say that is the responsibility of this government, and the government should accept that responsibility and see that our markets are maintained.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I am to be quoted, I do not want the hon. member to put words in my mouth. If my hon. friend says the government has said that, and I do not know that any other member of the government has said anything about it, may I say that the government has not said any such thing through me; it has not said that we were going to place responsibility for carrying products with the commodity boards in the provinces. We have not said that at all.


Percy Ellis Wright: The action of the government at the present time in failing to make any long-term contracts,' in failing to take up this international commodity clearing house proposition, and in every action they have taken to date in the last year, indicates that. All I am saying is that I think it is an indication of the true intention of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only surplus today is the surplus of cheese and we are carrying that right now.


Percy Ellis Wright: For how long? Until the first of August next year. You have stated that at that time you are getting out of the market. That is the statement that has been made by this government. That is the position with respect to pork.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is repeating statements his leader in the province of Saskatchewan has been making for the last three months; and none of them is correct.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am repeating things that the minister himself has stated.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never stated that.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister stated that, as far as pork was concerned, on the first of August the government were out of the picture.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I have not.


Percy Ellis Wright: That their contract was ended with Great Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement was read to you just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Bellechasse and that is not what I said.


Percy Ellis Wright: You said that the price was guaranteed to the first of August only.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Only one person may speak at one time.


Percy Ellis Wright: If what I have said is not right, the minister will have a chance to deny it; and I hope he will deny it by action and not promises, as in the past, when it has been mostly a matter of words and not action. What the farmers of this country are looking for today is action, not a lot of glib promises.


Mr. A. A. Elderkin (Annapolis-Kings):: rumours from Nova Scotia are correct, Mr. Speaker, this may be the only opportunity I shall have to address the house before reelection. I therefore wish to place before the government and hon. members of the House of Commons what I understand to be the needs of my constituents in Annapolis-Kings. As one coming from that part of Canada known as the maritimes, of which the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) says "It is practically a different world", I wish to pay my respects and to express my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the motion.
I am afraid it is only too true that the maritimes are a forgotten, or at least a neglected part of Canada. As a child I was amused by the arguments of the so-called secessionists, or those who would have one believe that they would like to withdraw from confederation and join the United States. As I have become older, and particularly since I have come to Ottawa, I am no longer amused but can see that they were absolutely sincere and had at least some grounds for their complaints.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to go into the matter of maritime rights nor, for that matter, the problems of Nova Scotia as a whole; I propose rather to confine myself as nearly as possible to the grand constituency of Annapolis-Kings which, at the moment, I still have the honour to represent. I think it is a fair statement to make that maritimers, as a whole, know more about Canada than the rest of Canada knows about the maritimes. This is not surprising, because in order for a maritimer to go anywhere he must leave his own section of Canada, and once started, he tends to keep on travelling; whereas the rest of Canada is so large that many residents of Canada outside the maritimes never reach the Atlantic seaboard. I have met many

people in the west who have heard of Halifax and Saint John but who did not have the foggiest idea where Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were.
I have heard many hon. members tell of the richness and of the unlimited resources of their constituencies. I am afraid that I can make no such claims for Annapolis-Kings. As a matter of fact, as far as we know at present, we have no great mineral resources nor have we any great industrial areas. We are entirely a rural section. Even our soil is on the poor side, of a type called podzol, derived from a Russian word meaning ash and indicating a soil highly leached of nutrients and chemicals. Even the so-called fertile Annapolis valley is little more fertile than the rest of the land, except for the marshlands, which are rich alluvial deposits. In that connection I should like to express to the government and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) our sincere appreciation of the work that has been and is being done under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act which will add materially to the welfare of our country for future generations. About half the total boundaries of my constituency is water, mainly the bay of Fundy and Minas basin. This is the land made famous by Longfellow's "Evangeline" and by many outstanding men. We are a people steeped in tradition, an old civilization as far as Canada is concerned. Port Royal now Annapolis Royal was settled by the French in 1603; and our whole central valley area was settled for long years before the expulsion of the Acad-dians in 1755. Whatever prosperity we have in our part has been of slow growth and has been built up by generations of industrious, frugal and thrifty people. We have a feeling of permanency, a feeling of always having been there. It is not uncommon to find the fifth and sixth generation on the same farm and the third and fourth generation in the same house.
We in Nova Scotia are a long way from the markets of central and western Canada, and are traditionally a seafaring race-and especially was that so in the day of iron men and wooden ships-so that the natural market for our products is Great Britain, the New England states, Cuba and the British West Indies.
Before going more fully into this phase of our economy I should like to draw to the attention of the government and hon. members one or two matters of some importance to us. The proposal to extend the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act to employment in hospitals and charitable institutions has raised a storm of protest in our part of the country and all through the 55946-19
The Address-Mr. Elderkin maritimes. As an example, I might cite the case of the Eastern Kings Memorial hospital in Wolfville, of which little hospital we are very proud. The only reason I choose the Wolfville hospital as an example rather than any of the four other excellent hospitals in Annapolis-Kings is that, as a member of the board of trustees for a number of years, I am very familiar with conditions there. It is a hospital of only thirty-bed capacity, but for a good many years it has been approved by the American College of Surgeons. In this hospital we have an efficient staff of nurses and doctors. Contrary to the experiences of many of the larger hospitals, we have little difficulty in keeping a fine group of nurses. This is largely on account of the "happy family" attitude which prevails among the doctors, nurses and others of the staff. In spite of this harmonious and efficient operation, we had a small deficit in 1948 but in 1949, even after an increase in rates, our deficit was nearly $7,000. I should like to urge the government to consider the matter carefully before they do anything which would increase costs to our hospitals already staggering under a heavy load.
In Kings county we have had for many years at Aldershot a military camp which has been used very little for training purposes since the end of world war II. I should like respectfully to suggest to the Minister of National Defence (Mr, Claxton) that Aider-shot camp be used as much as possible as a peacetime training camp.
Lest I might be considered unduly critical I should like to commend the Minister of National Defence and the government for reopening H.M.C.S. Cornwallis and the R.C.A.F. station at Greenwood. Much as we deplore the necessity of spending so much on defence, I believe all hon. members on both sides of the house agree that these expenditures cannot be avoided.
We have in Annapolis-Kings a good many fishermen who have their special problems of production, processing and marketing. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain some of the peculiarities of the fishing grounds from which our fishermen try to wrest a living. Almost the whole coast of my constituency is rugged and rocky, with these rocky shores washed by the tides and storms of the bay of Fundy and Minas basin.
The bay of Fundy, as some hon. members may know, is noted for its extremely high tides-a rise and fall occurs daily from 20 feet to an extreme high of 60 feet or more. For anyone who has no experience with these high tides and consequently with the tremendous currents of this region, it is almost
280	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Elderkin impossible to realize conditions as they are. Even a moderate wind will kick up a very high sea, if tide and wind are opposed. Off Blomidon the rush and roar of the waters a\ certain times of the tide are almost unbelievable, and although not so spectacular as Niagara, the water that flows over Niagara would be a mere trickle compared with what flows by cape Split four times each twenty-four hours. With these strong currents our fishermen have at all times to contend and they must adapt themselves to the tides and in fact use them to their own advantage.
On this particular coast we have no low-water harbours and boats must enter and leave at half-tide and in many cases at three-quarter tide. This often means that in times of sudden storm they may not be able to run for shelter but have to ride it out until such time as the tide is right. In the case of a bad nor'easter they may not be able to make harbour at all; consequently during the stormy seasons our fishermen are very careful about going out to the fishing grounds for fear that they cannot get in and may be storm-stayed out in the dangerous bay of Fundy.
This makes their fishing season shorter than it might be if there were deep-water harbours. Therefore, anything that may reduce their catch at any time seriously affects their livelihood, and hence their objection to draggers, which they claim not only deplete the supply of haddock and cod but also disturb the feeding grounds so that it is almost hopeless to catch the fish remaining after the draggers are through.
To explain this a little, the fishing grounds of the bay of Fundy are not made up of a continuous shelf or bank. The floor of the bay of Fundy is much like the shore line with hills and hollows, ups and downs, with the feeding grounds generally on the peaks or higher ridges.
When the draggers get through with these ridges the tides take over and move the disturbed feed. It has not yet been determined whether these feeding grounds are merely moved or if they are temporarily destroyed, but it has been definitely determined that some time elapses before feed is again available there.
The fishing section of my constituency extends from Victoria Beach on the extreme west and Delaps Cove in the northwest to Scotts Bay at the easterly end, a distance of roughly 130 miles. The westerly half of this shore line is along that part of the bay of Fundy which could most rightly be called a part of the Atlantic ocean, but the farther east we go the narrower the bay of Fundy becomes, and as the bay becomes narrower, so the 

objections to the activities of the draggers become greater, as it is here they interfere most with the "inshore" fishermen.
Our Canadian draggers are supposed to keep outside the 12-mile limit but the American draggers may legally come to the 3-mile limit. I do not know that any American draggers have been in this area to which I have reference, but Canadian draggers certainly have been and are quite careless about distance, especially after dark.
Besides the conventional draggers we now have smaller vessels 40 feet long, or shorter, and these smaller ships do not comply with any 12-mile limit nor with the 3-mile limit but may, and often do, come close inshore, dragging lobster traps, herring nets, weirs and trawls.
I should like to urge the government through the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. May-hew) thoroughly to investigate the fisheries and fishing conditions of the bay of Fundy area in an endeavour to discover the best solution of their problems so that the fishermen of my section may take their proper place in the economy of our great nation.
I should like to go on record as being in favour of a complete and independent survey of the Chignecto canal.
It is thought by many people, even in Nova Scotia, that we in Annapolis-Kings produce apples and little else. This is far from true, for Kings county alone even before world war II produced agricultural products, other than apples, to a value greater than any other county in Nova Scotia.
We had at one time a very lucrative trade with Cuba and the British West Indies, mostly in potatoes and fish. These have now been almost entirely lost with the exception of the sale of certified seed potatoes. Various nefarious jugglings were responsible for the loss of these markets. Perhaps the one most responsible for this loss was "Sugar Daddy" Rhodes, who, while minister of finance under a Conservative regime, put increased duties on sugar. I would ask hon. members opposite if it is any wonder Annapolis-Kings goes Liberal most of the time. After the loss of these markets for fish and potatoes our fishermen became poverty stricken, and our potato growers either quit growing potatoes or went bankrupt.
Shut out by tariff walls from the markets to which we had cheap and ready access by water freight, we became more dependent upon our sales of apples to Britain, which country, up to the outbreak of war in 1939, was a free open market in which we found ready sale for nearly all we could produce.

During the war we were, generally speaking, able to find a ready market for any farm product we produced with the exception of apples, which was a war casualty, and about which I propose to speak later.
I should like here to quote a few figures to show the increase in production of some of our agricultural products during the past few years. Poultry increased in numbers from 300,000 in 1941 to 800,000 in June, 1949; hogs from 13,000 in 1941 to 19,000 last year. Dairy production increased 10 per cent in the last five years. Potato acreage increased 20 per cent since 1941. Pears increased from 300 acres in 1939 to 700 acres in 1949. Plums have increased about 18 per cent in the past 10 years, while small fruits and vegetables have increased 50 per cent.
You can see from this brief summary, Mr. Speaker, that we have been trying to diversify our farm economy. For the first few years after the war we were able to sell our increased production at reasonable prices, but now we find ourselves in about the same position in regard to markets as we were before the war, although local purchasing power is much better than in 1939, and we also have a somewhat increased consumer population.
We farmers have been told and are being told that we should not put all our eggs in one basket but should diversify. This we are quite willing to do and capable of doing if we only have a market for our products.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, even before the war the rail-haul to the markets of central Canada was too expensive for most of our products; but now, with our freight rates increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent over former rates, central Canada is just that much farther away.
We are also handicapped in my part of the country by the fact that our season for strawberries, plums, cherries, and all early vegetables is somewhat later than in central Canada, so that at the time our early tomatoes and other early vegetables and fruits are ready for market we find carloads of Ontario produce being dumped in Nova Scotia. It takes only a few carloads of Ontario fruits or vegetables to glut our home market. By the time we are at peak production our market is saturated with supplies from outside Nova Scotia.
Then let us take a look at a product like carrots, which we can grow readily and economically in many parts of my constituency, but for part of which we must find a market outside Nova Scotia. According to government statistics, on February 1 of this year there were in the whole of Canada 8,196 tons of carrots in storage. Of this amount 1,787 55946-192
The Address-Mr. Elderkin tons were in Nova Scotia. With the price in Montreal being only about 2 cents a pound for domestic grown carrots, owing to the new crop coming in from the United States, what chance have we of clearing up the balance of last year's crop, or what incentive is there to plant a new crop?
Another crop which is normally salable in
Canada with little difficulty is cranberries. It costs anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500 per acre to put a cranberry bog in proper condition to produce berries. The sprinkler system alone costs $1,500 per acre. Cranberries take several years before they come into production, but with proper care and frost protection will give satisfactory yields of good quality berries for many years.
Normally Canada does not raise sufficient cranberries for her own use and until fairly recent years the volume and quality was so uncertain that a proper demand could not be built up; but now with improved methods and more knowledge both the quality and supply are reasonably adequate.
Cranberries, like many other products, come under the Geneva and Annecy agreements and consequently there does not appear to be any way to impose quotas or restrictions on Cape Cod berries coming into Canada until tariffs come up for revision this year.
In 1948, owing to the imposition of exchange
regulations, no cranberries came from Cape Cod into Canada, and as the Canadian supply was limited the prices went very high, the wholesale price in Montreal in November of that year being $9.90 for a 25-pound box, and in December it rose to $11.13 per box.
With the lifting of exchange restrictions in 1949 Cape Cod berries came in a regular flood, a total of 3,725,000 pounds entering Canada last year. Of course, prices dropped until in November, 1949, the wholesale price in Montreal of Canadian-grown cranberries was $2.62 per box; in December the price rose to $2.99. What hopes for cranberries?
If our products are shipped C.P.R. to Montreal they must be handled and rehandled because of the lack of a car ferry between Saint John and Digby. If these products are shipped D.A.R. and C.N.R. to Montreal, they not only have an extra long haul but travel over two rail systems.
As we are all aware, it is impossible to build up and hold a market for perishable farm products without cheap and adequate transportation; as transportation improves so does the prosperity of the country.
In this connection I should like with your permission to quote in part from an announce ment made in this house on December 7,

The Address-Mr. Elderkin 1949, with regard to steamship service by the Minister of Transport, as reported on page 2829 of Hansard. He said:
At the present time the S.S. Yarmouth operates between Yarmouth and Boston during the summer months, making three trips per week.
And again:
It is felt that if this vessel is going to discontinue the service, some method should be found to increase the number of tourist cars which may be carried to Nova Scotia during the summer season. Both governments likewise feel that the situation cannot be left in a state of uncertainty, and that the tourist traffic into Nova Scotia should not only be maintained but increased.
I am therefore pleased to announce that it has been decided to build a vessel which will not only be adequate to carry the present traffic but which will serve to increase the tourist trade between Nova Scotia and the United States. The proposed vessel will be a fast modern car ferry with a capacity of about 200 cars and about 1,000 passengers. The service will be based on Yarmouth, and will operate between that port and a port in the eastern United States. Being a modem vessel it will offer facilities considerably better than those now available, at a much cheaper cost to tourists and more in line with present and anticipated needs.
With this I am quite in accord but I would suggest that this announcement does not go far enough. We in Annapolis-Kings will welcome any increase in tourists resulting from this move, for we like their money and with possible exceptions we like them for themselves. Moreover, we like people to enjoy the beauty of our very beautiful country.
I would respectfully say to the government that I do not believe our tourist business in itself will go very far in solving the economic problems of our section of Nova Scotia, and I would further suggest that in the planning of the ship, serious consideration should be given to its adaptability for fast, efficient and economical freight. If we had efficient, economical and dependable freight service from Yarmouth to a port in the eastern states near a good market with the ship arriving at the United States port at the proper time of day, the economic problems of western Nova Scotia would be half solved. If, in addition to this efficient water service, we had a reduction in the tariff on our primary products entering the United States, I believe we could solve our own problems as far as small fruits and vegetables are concerned.
If something of this kind could be worked out it would be only a few years until we would be producing large quantities of small fruits and vegetables, strawberries, blueberries, both wild and cultivated, raspberries, plums, and believe it or not, cherries. The lower part of Annapolis county is a natural for the production of cherries. Besides these

products we would have an extended market for poultry and poultry products, choice beef, veal and dairy products.
Our fishermen would benefit also from this outlet and could land fresh and frozen fish, lobsters and scallops in the Boston market. Give us a fast, efficient, economical water freight service, with reduced tariffs, and we will do the rest. I do not think that this is too much for us, from that place which is "practically a different world", to ask of a Liberal government, which does not need the name "progressive" tacked onto it to be really progressive.
I should like to speak for a few minutes about our apple problem. I should say at the outset that I know the problem but that I have no ready solution unless we can within a few years regain at least a part of our old market in Britain. I should like, if I have time, to briefly sketch the growth of the Nova Scotia apple industry up to 1939, present the problem as it then appeared, tell what we as growers have tried to do to remedy the situation, what assistance we have had from the Canadian government and what we should like the government to do for us now.
The first recorded plantings of apples in the Annapolis valley was in the early seventeenth century at Port Royal. Apples did not take on any great commercial significance until after 1850, when occasional shipments were made to England in small sailing vessels. But as transportation facilities became better our plantings of apple trees became greater. These plantings were largely of varieties which at that time were acceptable to the British consumers and consisted largely of culinary or cooking varieties to which our soil and climate seemed particularly well adapted. Our production continued to increase with the emphasis in a large degree on volume and economy of production as the consumers of our fruit were mostly people of very moderate or low income.
We always had insect pests in our Nova Scotia orchards but until after 1900 they were of major importance only at periodic intervals. In addition to insect pests we have always had apple scab, or black spot, as it is often called. This scab is a cool-weather fungus and appears to grow best in cool wet weather, of which we have a great deal in Nova Scotia.
It was not until after the first world war that -we began to spray in earnest and it took some years for us to find that we could grow varieties like McIntosh which are very susceptible to scab. In fact, as late as 1924 the experimental station at Kentville advised

The Address-Mr. Elderkin
against the planting of McIntosh and similar varieties as they were not deemed suitable for our climate. Moreover, we were catering almost entirely to the British market where even for dessert purposes the taste appears to be different from that on this side of the Atlantic. In Canada the demand was largely for large red apples of somewhat softer texture and by and large sub-acid. In Britain, however, they wanted a crisper, chewier, more acid apple or as they often said, "apples with character". The three most popular dessert varieties which we grew for the British trade were Cox Orange, Golden Russet and Ribston Pippin, none of which can we sell in volume in Canada at anywhere near production costs. It is true that there was a place for large red apples on the English market but they were largely like the King, a dual purpose apple, an excellent cooker but also of good eating quality. Most of our export varieties were of green, yellow or a russet colour.
This was partly because the English growers grew these kinds and the public was accustomed to them and also partly because our climate is such in most years that we can grow that type more economically than the red varieties which require more sunshine and care. During the 1920's we had almost continuous bad growing years. The 1930's were generally speaking good apples years in spite of bad winter injury in 1933-34, of severe frosts in 1936 and two disastrous gales, each from different directions, in 1937. In spite of these handicaps we produced an average yearly crop of almost six million bushels for the years 1936-38. In 1939 we had a crop of slightly over six million bushels.
It was apparent even during the thirties that we must not rely too heavily on the British market as their production was increasing so that in years when they had big crops most of our apples were not wanted and sold for low prices.
Up to 1912, when the United Fruit Company of Nova Scotia was formed, most growers packed and shipped their own fruit or sold to dealers, first largely tree run but later mostly on a packed-out basis. With the advent of co-operative companies there was a decline in grower packing and also in selling to apple dealers. In Nova Scotia a grower had four choices: he could sell on the local market, could himself ship to England, sell to dealers, or market co-operatively. Let us again note that the emphasis was on quantity not quality, economy not excellence During the years the Nova Scotia fruit growers were constantly striving to get varieties which were more productive and more
profitable, but a great many were of little or no value and were only removed by death or grafting. Others like McIntosh, Cortland and Delicious were valuable but they all added to the numbers so that in 1939 we had nearly 200 different varieties.
We packed almost entirely in barrels, which was a strong, cheap package capable of easy and rapid handling. Some boxes were packed as early as 1910 and some progressive growers were forever trying different types of package. In nearly all cases the grower returned to barrels as netting him the most profit. I have seen in the past few years so-called new packages which were almost identical with those we had tried and found1 unprofitable.
Thus when war broke out in 1939 we found ourselves with a crop of over two million barrels composed mostly of varieties not readily salable in Canada under any condition and owing to the war our overseas market was almost entirely lost. If we had attempted to market this crop in Canada it would have been ruinous not only to us but also to the other apple-producing areas in Canada. After discussions with the federal government it was decided that something should be done. As a result of this the Nova Scotia apple marketing board was set up through which all Nova Scotia apples produced in the commercial apple areas of Nova Scotia must be marketed. In fact, what the government did was to buy up all the Nova Scotia apples which could not be sold on the fresh fruit markets and process them. Of the 1939 crop half a million barrels were sold as fresh fruit overseas and on the domestic market, and over one and a half million barrels were processed. In that way the Canadian market was largely left for Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. This type of assistance has been rendered to the Nova Scotia apple industry every year up to 1949, except that the form of assistance varied somewhat from year to year. The endeavour was to process enough Nova Scotia apples so that our fruit wbuld not interfere too much with that grown in the rest of Canada.
This scheme really was remarkably successful, as anyone familiar with the apple picture in Canada knows. The last six or seven years have been the most prosperous for the apple growers of Canada of any similar period, with the exception of Nova Scotia growers. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia growers have never known such prosperity.
What then of Nova Scotia with all the millions of taxpayers' money that was poured into our industry? It is quite true that 1946 was a banner year with over two million barrels of good apples. There was a large
2S4

The Address-Mr. Elderkin sale to Britain at excellent prices and our growers did make a profit. But for all the other years from 1939 to 1949 most growers lost money on their apples. If you accept that statement I must answer two or three questions. First, where did the money go? It went partly to the growers for production costs but largely to pay for processing that portion of the crop that was taken off the fresh fruit market. Perhaps you will say too much went in profit on fertilizers and spray materials. As to that, the margin of profit was fixed by the wartime prices and trade board, and for the past five or six years most of these supplies were furnished by co-operative fruit companies so that whatever profit was left went back to the growers in any event.
How then did they live and thrive if they lost money on their apples? That is the easiest question of all to answer. Up to 1949, and even for part of that year, we could sell at a profit, apart from some exceptions which always occur with farm products, practically everything we produced, beef, hogs, eggs, poultry, milk, plums, pears, potatoes, small fruits and vegetables. Why then were Nova Scotia orchardists so unwise as to continue producing at a loss? Nothing but blind faith in Britain, that she would soon be able to buy our apples again, and the knowledge that we could produce at least as cheaply as any other section. What have we been doing for ourselves? First we have made a concentrated effort to convert our orchards to highly coloured dessert varieties more readily salable in Canada. This has been done largely by new plantings and by grafting. In 1948 alone over 40,000 trees were grafted.
We have removed over 700,000 trees that were either old or of undesirable varieties. We have erected four large modem cold storage plants where boxes and other small packages are stored, packaged and shipped, and all other warehouses are now equipped to pack in packages smaller than barrels. We have had one desk selling for the past eleven years.
The fact remains that there are more apples produced in Canada than can be sold here, and in the meantime we in Nova Scotia are still producing too many varieties which have little sales appeal on local markets and not yet enough of the desirable varieties, for it takes years to change over apple orchards. It cannot be done in two or three years. Even though we have already destroyed over
700,000	ti'ees, I believe we should remove at least an additional 300,000 this year.
I should like to trace briefly tree removal in Nova Scotia from 1939 to date. In 1939 some of us rented heavy tractors from the
(Mr. Elderkin.)
provincial government and removed old and/ or undesirable varieties. No record was kept of the numbers removed that year. In 1940 and 1941 the Nova Scotia government provided tractors free for tree removal. About
100.000	trees were removed in these years. As it is quite expensive to remove tree debris and rehabilitate the land, and as farmers were hard up, the federal government was asked for assistance. From 1943 to 1946, 231,477 trees were destroyed under a bonus of $2 per tree. Trees destroyed had to be from commercial orchards and able to meet requirements as to size and bearing capacity. The Nova Scotia government supplied free tractors for this work.
There was no tree removal policy in 1947. But when it was realized that we would not likely have an open market in Great Britain for some years, an arrangement was entered into with the federal government in 1948 for assistance in the removal of an additional
300.000	trees. We were in this case attempting with government assistance to eliminate good commercial trees of varieties formerly acceptable in Great Britain.
I wish to take this opportunity of expressing the sincere thanks of our growers for all that the government of Canada has done through the years to save this valuable industry. I realize that our growers would also wish me to express thanks for the assistance and co-operation rendered by the government of my province. In conclusion, I would not be doing my duty if I did not impress on the government and hon. members of the house the necessity of making good the loss suffered in the marketing of last year's crop. Until the rehabilitation of our fruit growers is completed, it would seem that the apple growers of Nova Scotia require a government assistance program for that portion of our crop which cannot be sold on the fresh fruit market. In addition to the
700.000	trees that have already been destroyed, it is absolutely necessary to have public assistance that will ensure the removal of another 300,000 trees this year.


Mr. A. E. Dewar (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker
and hon. gentlemen-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is out of order but we like it.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I heard somebody remark that it is out of order to say "hon. gentlemen", and if so I am sorry. I believe it is customary to compliment the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In this particular instance I am more than pleased inasmuch as the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) is a fellow colleague

from the province of Saskatchewan. He discharged his duty in a most creditable manner. I am sure all hon. members of the house will join with me in extending to him the highest compliments. The same remarks apply to the seconder.
The qualifications I have as the member for the constituency of Qu'Appelle are those of a woman beater. I do not want that remark to be construed in such a way that the female sex will be prejudiced against me. Frankly, I have a great deal of respect and regard for them, but nevertheless I am here as a woman beater. Turning now to the constituency of Qu'Appelle, at this time I should like to mention a former member, the late Ernest Perley who, while of a different party, was a personal friend of mine. Politically we were opposed, but as personal friends we were very close. Then of course there is the very good lady whom it was my pleasure to defeat in the last election.
The riding of Qu'Appelle is essentially a rural one. It is one of the wealthiest and one of the best ridings in the Dominion of Canada, if not the best. The wealth of the Qu'Appelle riding stems from agricultural products, and by virtue of that quite naturally I am interested in seeing that their agricultural products will be sold at prices which will permit the people whom I represent to carry on their farming operations on a basis that will provide them with a good income and a good standard of living. I stand for the retention of the Crowsnest pass freight rates, as I think every hon. member from western Canada should; and I hope no one anywhere in Canada will ever undertake to alter those rates.
Then we have the wheat board. For the major portion of my business life I was in the grain trade, and during that period I was opposed to compulsory marketing and such things as the wheat board and the wheat pools. However, in later years I had the opportunity of studying some of the hardships which were caused by the rise and fall of wheat prices, and as a result I have come to firmly believe in the principle of wheat board marketing. I stand for that and will fight for it; and I know those whom I represent in the riding of Qu'Appelle will want me to make this statement.
I believe the marketing of coarse grains is being handled in the only sensible way. That is a commodity which for the most part is consumed within our own boundaries. When it is remembered that approximately eighty per cent of our coarse grains are marketed within Canada it will be seen that the board is placed in a rather difficult position when it is exDected to be both buyer and seller.
The Address-Mr. Dewar Naturally we in the west are on the tail of the wheat board to get the price up; naturally those in the east and in the feeder markets are on the tail of the board to keep prices down.
We have the P. F. A. A., which in my opinion is one of the finest act's ever passed by the House of Commons. The principle is good, and as far as 1 can see the method is the best that has been devised to date. I do not say something better may not be discovered, but it is the best we have found so far. The only suggestion I would make in passing is that I believe the time is long past when the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta should also recognize their responsibilities. Unfortunately there is altogether too much of this wanting provincial autonomy and then, when it is offered, saying, "No, it is a federal responsibility". So I suggest that in the borderline or isolated cases the provincial governments should begin to assume some of the responsibility that is rightfully theirs.
I have a note here under the heading "water", and you will notice that I just had a drink. It is a very important commodity. We have the P. F. R. A., which deals with water conservation and the construction of small dugouts for farmers. Those who have not had the privilege, which I have had, of seeing what these have meant to the farmers in western Canada cannot fully appreciate the importance of these projects. The work has been well done; the money devoted to the development of these small dugouts on the farms has been wisely spent. When you see the little orchards, the little groves of trees, the water systems on the farms, the pressure systems in the houses, you realize that this is a wonderful thing.
Then in Alberta we have the irrigation projects. Those hon. members coming from that province who have seen irrigation systems in action and have seen their advantages will appreciate the value of those great works. In the Fraser valley we have the diking-


An hon. Member:: Snow banks.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Yes, snow banks. They mean water, and water often means trouble. They have had a lot of trouble in the Fraser valley, and I am afraid they are going to have a lot more. The diking program which has been embarked upon by this government is going to mean a great deal to the people of the Fraser valley. In the eastern part of our country we have the marshland reclamation project. That is also a wonderful thing.
All these matters deal with water. In our own province we have the South Saskatchewan river project. I think I should note in passing that of all hon. members of this house I am the onlv one who has lived within a

The Address-Mr. Dewar ' short distance of the proposed site of the South Saskatchewan river development dam. I lived there for a number of years, so I think I can speak authoritatively as to the problem, as to the need and as to the urgency of developing this project. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has suggested both last session and this session that the minister representing Saskatchewan and the government of that province should hang their heads in shame, but I say that is not so. You just do not embark upon a scheme involving the expenditure of fifty, a hundred or a hundred and fifty million dollars without investigating the potentialities. After all is said and done Canada is a nation; it is not just a matter of one isolated spot. Therefore when I say this is a proper expenditure to be made, I have in mind the need for the project and the urgency in relation to it. Some time ago in the Regina Leader-Post there appeared an article headed "River betrayal plan" by the attorney general of that province, a chap by the name of Corman. He says we have betrayed the people, and that we are going to compel the Saskatchewan government to pay half the cost of approximately $100 million or the dam will not be proceeded with. That statement is absolutely wrong; that was never said. We want to make sure that the provinces where we are spending money on water conservation make use of that water. There is no point in building a dam on the South Saskatchewan if the water is just going to lie there for a few fish to swim in or for someone to take a bath now and again. That water must be utilized.
Then on this continent we have the St. Lawrence waterway development scheme, which has been under discussion for a good many years. If people will just stop and look at the geographical set-up of this country they will see that we have the greatest inland water system of any nation in the world, and it is at our very doorstep. Let us not lose sight of that fact. Everything we have has to do with water. I hear an hon. member say I am full of water. Well, I would hate to say what he is full of. Today we are living in the greatest paradox imaginable in connection with this commodity called water. In Ottawa we are at the junction of two rivers, but we find that in the summertime there is not enough water available to permit people to water their lawns. If you go to Montreal you find the same situation. They have the same problem in Vancouver; yet they are living adjacent to water everywhere. If eight weeks ago I had made the statement that water was one of the most essential and most critical things we have in Canada I might have been laughed at, and possibly I will be 
laughed at now. Had I forecast eight or ten weeks ago that a city the size of New York would be brought to its knees due to a shortage of water somebody might have said, "Oh, bosh; he doesn't know what he is talking about." Today, New York cannot expand. It is all right for you to laugh, my friend, if you wish, but water is one of the most important commodities we have in Canada. If you have not got water, if it is not conserved and properly utilized, continued existence is not possible.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is the one man in Canada who has taken a concrete, forward step with regard to this matter. He has fought inch by inch for these water developments. He has had the foresight to do so. I am wondering whether we in this parliament today, whether we of this generation in the Dominion of Canada, are going to have the foresight necessary to make provisions for the development of the water resources of this country. We talk about the Hudson Bay railway, and I am in favour of it. I am in favour of utilizing every facility we have in the Dominion of Canada. We think this railway is a great thing, but it is only a bagatelle in comparison with the development of the St. Lawrence. At least 4 cents per bushel will accrue to the western farmer on every bushel of wheat that is sold, to say nothing of the inland development which will take place.
Today there was an announcement with respect to power. There is a great paradox again, power. We have gone to bed on it, but not the dominion government. Consider the potential power in the St. Lawrence, 2,200,000 horsepower. It is sitting there at our back door. I have been in Ottawa for six or eight months, and about a month ago was about the first time I ever saw all the lights turned on. I tell you it is time we got down to a bit of realistic thinking. Some people say it is the fault of the federal government, but it is not. If one looks at all the documents and follows the correspondence through, examines the research that has been done since the plan originated back in 1938, one finds that the blame can be put on the congress of the United States. Probably I should not say that, but it is not a government statement, it is my statement. For the purpose of keeping the New York state vote, congress has not touched the St. Lawrence development. In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the adjacent states in the United States, we have everything at our doorstep short of power, it is for that reason I suggest that the time is long past when we in the Dominion of Canada should recognize our responsibilities,

and not be concerned with today or tomorrow, but think in terms of ten years from now. We should develop our water resources.
I am going to turn to the question of trade now, and more specifically to the question of trade with Great Britain. We have heard many references to British trade today. At this time I should like to say that I agree with the remarks the Minister of Agriculture made in this house last fall. I believe he has repeated this statement since then, but he suggested there seemed to be an organized attempt on the part of British officials to do away with trade agreements. Having said that, I expect some comments will be made upon it. I am not saying that the British people do not want to trade with us. They not only want to trade with us, but they want and need our products. During our peak period of trade in agricultural products in L94U or 1947, it amounted to approximately $450 million. Today, hon. members have said our trade has fallen apart. If they will check the figures, I believe they will find that last year we did approximately $400 million worth of business with the United Kingdom, which is only approximately $50 million less than the all-time high. I do not think this government should hang its head in shame over a record like that.
Further than that if our position today is reviewed, I fully believe the contracts we now have, and the business that will be done with the United Kingdom in the ensuing year, will come close to that figure. I believe all of us in this house appreciate, not necessarily fully understand, some of the suffering and hardship through which the people of Great Britain have passed during those trying years of war and since that time. Great Britain has had a lot of help from Canada. Possibly the trade agreements that were made were made with the understanding that after the war Canada would get a better deal. Apparently, that is not so. I should like to say now that I am rather surprised that the minister in charge of these contracts in Great Britain, or in charge of the purse strings, would do what he did when it came to a matter of making the odd contract for our eggs, cheese and a few such small items. For the sum of approximately $30 million, the British government has engendered the ill will of the producers of eggs, milk and cheese in Canada.
I believe the responsibility for this lies at the door of the ministry in Great Britain. It is my understanding that Great Britain has undertaken to have on hand when Marshall plan aid ends in 1952 the sum of $2 billion in dollar reserves. A few years ago Great Britain started to accumulate this sum. Today she has approximately $1,860 million of that
The Address-Mr. Dewar reserve, and there is still about two years to run. If anyone in this house can tell me where the common sense lies in engendering the ill will of the producers of this country for the sake of $30 million, as against $2 billion, when she already has $1,860 million, I should like to be shown. I cannot reconcile it, myself. If that is the type of government Great Britain has, I fear for the future of Great Britain.
I note that in a speech that was delivered by the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), a part of which appears at page 140 of Hansard, he said:
Figures from the dominion bureau of statistics show that the value of our field crops alone in Canada in 1949 fell by 16 per cent as compared with 1948, from a total of 31,696 million in 1948 to $1,427 in 1949.
Why did the hon. member not tell the rest of the story? It reminds me of the great Disraeli; you all know Disraeli. During the course of a debate in the House of Commons he is said to have remarked that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. These happen to be statistics which the hon. member is using, but he is using them to misrepresent the facts. The hon. member will point a finger over here and say that we have done this, but you have done that. But it is all right if he gets up and misinterprets. Did he tell you the rest of the story? He mentioned 16 per cent. Did he tell you that practically half of the province of Saskatchewan, the biggest agricultural value-producing area in the Dominion of Canada had no crop and had nothing this year? Does that not more than account for the 16 per cent? He did not tell you that, did he? I am telling you. I want to correct that impression. Then he goes on a little further on and says:
Under the control system they sacrificed more than $500 million as a result of the government's wheat policy alone. Our farmers were not permitted to sell their wheat on the free markets of the world. Today those same farmers are being deprived of the promised fruits of that policy.
The first comment I am going to make is this. This afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) stated that the farmers had lost one billion dollars. About a week ago the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said that they had lost a half a billion dollars. Just about ten days ago or less the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) stated that the loss had been two billion dollars. If they are going to state that the farmers have lost something, I wish to heaven they would get together on the amount; then, having got together on the amount which the farmers lost, they might submit some proposal to the government and the government might act on it. But I suggest that no loss was incurred, and I want to tell you the story.
298	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dewar I do not know whether I am going to have the time in which to do it tonight; if not, we shall have to adjourn the debate and go on at the next sitting.
At the time the war started, I was in the grain business, on the line. Under the Canada Grain Act, the grain companies must buy all the grain that is offered. But the war came. There was no chance for these dealers or grain companies to sell their grain. So what did they do? They came pit pat, pit pat to the Canadian government and said, "Will you help us out?" If the grain exchange had stayed open, the farmer would not have obtained anything for his grain, because they could not sell it. That is the first thing.


Mr. Hodgson:: They sold for $1.25 less than the world price.


Austin Edwin Dewar: Did they? Wait a minute and I will come to that. I will tell you something about that. That is all right. We were fighting a war. Don't forget that. The money that was being used to buy that wheat from the western farmers was coming from where?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Were we fighting a war for the last five years?


Austin Edwin Dewar: You just keep quiet until I get to the point. I will come to it. Just rest there for a minute.


Mr. Whitman:: Don't be so impatient.


Austin Edwin Dewar: We were fighting a war and the money that was going towards the buying of that wheat came from where? It came out of the credits that this government established in this country on a lend-lease basis for Great Britain; in other words, it came out of the pockets of the taxpayers. So we could have put the price up to $2 a bushel, but it would not have meant anything. But we said, "No; we are going to hold the line", and we did it most successfully. If the government did nothing else during the war years, it held down inflation; and I am proud to be associated with men who had the foresight to do that. Having said that, I will proceed.
The grain exchange were quite happy to take their profits on storage. They had no chance of losing any money. They took their storage charges. They were able to write off those balloon-type bins they built and charge it up against profits. But as soon as the war ended, when even a Chinaman could have sold wheat to anybody, what did they do? They came to the government and said, "Give us back the wheat. We want to sell it". Do you suppose for one minute that the producer would have shared in those profits?


Mr. Sinnoli:: He would not.


Austin Edwin Dewar: He certainly would not have; definitely not. So my hon. friend and some of his colleagues have the temerity to rise in their places and suggest that the farmers of this country lost half a billion dollars. One of them says half a billion, another says a billion and another says two billions; I am wondering if it will get up to three billions.
Mr Hodgson: The Minister of Agriculture agreed with the half billion figure. He said so this afternoon.


Austin Edwin Dewar: If I remember correctly the Minister of Agriculture has never stated that, and you will never get him to state it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He did this afternoon. Read Hansard tomorrow.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I think probably the hon. member had better read Hansard, and it will put him straight.
Then we come along to the post-war years. Those on the other side of the house are always talking about the great big harvests and the great feeling we as a member of the commonwealth should have for Great Britain; but by the lord Harry, they never miss an opportunity to suggest that we should shove prices up to them and make them pay through the nose. In other words, their charity goes just to the extent that happens to serve their ends. Then another little thing-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Where are the long-term contracts now?


Austin Edwin Dewar: Just relax for a minute and I will come to that. As a matter of fact, it being eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow as the first item we shall move to go into supply. When the motion is passed we shall call three departments, namely, external affairs, national defence and agriculture. Then we shall resume the' debate on the address. But from eight o'clock until nine there will be an hour for private and public bills.


George Alexander Drew: I think there should be some explanation as to why it is felt that it is necessary to call three departments at this time. Why is it necessary to call more than one or at the most two at this time?


Alphonse Fournier: At the beginning of any session since I have been in the house we never started off with one department; it was always with two or three. In this instance we are trying to meet the wishes of

the opposition who would like to have a day on some department. If I did not have three departments at my disposal, I would not undertake to get the ministers here at a time which would suit the opposition. I think this is a reasonable request to make for the start. As to next week, I shall have further discussions with the members of the opposition. I repeat that I want to co-operate. But on the other hand, there must be co-operation from both sides of the house. I really think that this request is reasonable.


Mr. Coldwell:: I should think that two departments would be reasonable, because if one minister were away the other could bring forward his estimates.


Mr. Weir:: He might be sick.


Major James William Coldwell: In any event, I would remind the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) suggested that one department a week might be called. If three go through tonight, this must not be taken as a precedent that three or two should be called in subsequent weeks. This may be a comparatively long session; and as we know, when the departments are all in hon. members' opportunities for raising grievances in the house-the age-old custom -are limited. After what the Prime Minister said the other evening, I think we in the opposition must be careful that we do not allow too many departments to go in at this time lest we find ourselves in the position, a little later on, of not being able to raise grievances on going into supply, if we wish to do so, week by week, throughout the session, which may be a longer one than many of us anticipated when we came here.


Alphonse Fournier: A long session, in my experience, is approximately twenty weeks. There are twenty or twenty-one departments that have to be brought in. Even if we bring in three departments today, and bring it up to about five, to give me a little leeway in the calling of departments, there will still be another fifteen or sixteen departments to be called. We could not go into supply on the first three days of the week without putting a formal motion. We have to have a formal motion even if we did not have any new departments to bring in. We could not study the estimates on a Monday, Tuesday
Business of the House
or Wednesday without putting a formal motion. Then hon. members can air their grievances.
Well, if I have not a certain number of departments, the order paper having very few bills, I would not like to take a chance of seeing the house without work in advance. The more that is considered the more it will be seen that I am quite reasonable.


Major James William Coldwell: All I am trying to do is to point out that it should not be regarded as a precedent for another week, or for subsequent weeks.


Alphonse Fournier: We would not consider it in that way.


Major James William Coldwell: Because, after all, the house has set aside rules pretty thoroughly just lately. The very fact we are going into supply is against all parliamentary procedure until the house has voted confidence in the government. There is no question the house will vote that confidence; but custom is that this shall not be done until after the address has been approved, and, though the debate may be long or short, that is the procedure which the house should follow.


Alphonse Fournier: It will not be considered as a precedent. But I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would agree that, while government business is generally decided by the government, we never follow the rules strictly. Generally we consult with opposition leaders as to what would be the best procedure to follow. That is what we intend to do this year-not to keep to that strict rule whereby the government would just come in and announce its business and proceed in that way. I do not think that would go toward making progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it was because the minister was interrupted, but I do not think he indicated what the business would be when and if we finish the matter of getting into supply.


Alphonse Fournier: I announced we would resume the debate on the address, with the exception of the hour from eight to nine, which goes to public and private bills.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, February 28, 1950



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS