1952-03-07

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I was asked yesterday if some arrangement could be made to answer questions which appear on the order paper, and to have motions for production of papers considered. I promised to have a word with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and with the leaders of the other groups to see what might appear to be most convenient to them in that regard. Of course if the special order were exhausted in the meantime the question would not arise; but if the debate on the address is still continuing I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that on Wednesday next, before the special order is called, you call questions and notices of motions for production of papers.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement in regard to the handling of out-of-condition grain arising from the 1951 crop in the prairie provinces. I am making this statement on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as well as on my own behalf.
As members of the house know, the 1951 grain crop in the west was harvested under very unfavourable circumstances. Of the grain which was harvested last fall, a large proportion was threshed in a tough and damp condition, which has created unprecedented problems for producers themselves, for the Canadian wheat board, the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada and for grain handling agencies. In addition, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, about 150 million bushels of wheat and 135 million bushels of oats and barley still remain to be threshed.
According to the records of the Canadian wheat board, about 186 million bushels of tough and damp wheat, oats, and barley have now been accepted at country elevators. This compares with 100 million bushels of
tough and damp grain accepted at country elevators in the preceding crop year when the problem of out-of-condition grain was regarded as particularly serious.
Substantial progress has been made in disposing of tough wheat, oats and barley, and about 50 million bushels of tough and damp grain have been dried in terminal elevators at the Pacific coast, in the lake-head and in interior terminal elevators. In addition, damp wheat is being shipped to the United States for drying. However, there are still substantial stocks of tough and damp grain in public storage, and it will be some time before these stocks can be disposed of or dried.
In addition to the quantities of tough and damp grain delivered to the board and the quantities of these deliveries which remain in store, there is a considerable quantity of damp grain which was threshed last fall and still remains on farms. On the basis of recent surveys carried out by the board there were about 36 million bushels of threshed damp wheat on farms in the prairie provinces in mid-February. In addition, there were substantial quantities of threshed tough wheat and threshed tough and damp oats and barley on farms awaiting delivery.
The next sixty to eighty days will be critical from the standpoint of the delivery of present farm stocks of threshed out-ofcondition grain. It is the policy to provide delivery opportunity for these farm stocks of tough and damp grain as soon as physically possible. It will be difficult to complete this task before the warm weather sets in. Producers having tough and damp grain on their farms will have to exercise unusual care in maintaining the condition of these stocks until they can be delivered at country elevators. This, broadly, is the problem which lies ahead in handling threshed out-of-condition grain now on farms.
In view of the circumstances which I have described, I would like to appeal to all producers with unthreshed grain on their farms to use their best efforts to see that their spring threshing does not add to the present problem of out-of-condition grain. Under the circumstances which now prevail, no assurance can be given that there will be a prompt delivery opportunity for grain which is harvested this spring in a tough or damp condition. It should also be emphasized

Grain
that if grain is threshed in the spring with a high moisture content and when the weather is warm, it would be most difficult for handling companies to maintain the condition of this grain in country elevators and while in transit to terminal elevators. This fact should be seriously considered by producers before undertaking the threshing of grain still in the fields in the prairie provinces.
It is apparent that even if spring harvesting is confined to the threshing of dry grain, deliveries of out-of-condition grain for the crop year 1951-52 will total at least 250 million bushels. This is an unprecedented quantity of out-of-condition grain to be received in any crop year, and is taxing and will continue to tax our grain handling facilities to the limit. While a large percentage of the threshed out-of-condition grain has now been delivered at country elevators, substantial farm stocks still remain in certain areas. These areas are now well defined, and the extent of the remaining problem is known. To relieve these areas the best efforts of the Canadian wheat board, the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, the transport controller, the handling companies and the railways will be continued.
With the co-operation of all concerned, and especially with the co-operation of producers in respect to their spring threshing, losses arising from the harvesting of so much out-of-condition grain from the 1951 crop can be held at minimum levels. The coming of an early spring will greatly assist in handling the over-all problem of out-of-condition grain, but will make it more difficult for producers to maintain the condition of tough and damp wheat on farms until delivery can be effected.


Mr. Coldwell:: Is there any estimate as to the amount of uncut or unthreshed grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, there is.


Major James William Coldwell: That is, in addition to the amount stored on the farms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are about 150 million bushels of wheat and 135 million bushels of oats and barley still unthreshed.


Mr. Argue:: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he any knowledge of the available supply of small grain driers, and the success there has been in using them? Of what value are they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I do not remember the exact number that have been brought into use-perhaps it would be forty or fifty. They contribute very little to the over-all problem, and, unless they are handled by experts there is grave danger that they may damage the wheat. I notice that the press
[Mr. Howe.l
has been publishing photographs of loaves of bread made from standard wheat and loaves from wheat coming from these driers. The photographs indicate that the driers can easily cook the wheat so that it has no commercial value. I think that the small driers are making small contribution to the over-all problem.


Mr. Fair:: I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Is it not true that in the press of a few days ago great praise was given to those who are handling the small driers, and that very little damage has been done to the quality of the wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have beard of the damage that has been done, and not of the good results. However, I am sure there is a fair proportion of both.


Robert Fair: I believe a couple of driers were taken in, and the work done by them was improved when it was shown that they were not doing a'good job.



REVISED STATUTES


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me to report upon the progress in the revision of the statutes. I said then, offhand, that I thought it would take several months, but that I would look into the matter and make a further report, which is as follows:
The statute revision commission was appointed in February, 1949, and immediately after the appointment of the commission a legal and clerical staff was employed by the commission to assist in the consolidation and revision of the statutes. The work has proceeded according to the following successive stages: (1) Preparation of a consolidation from the official texts of the statutes; (2) printing the consolidation; (3) correction of page proofs by clerical staff and revising by the commission of the first print in accordance with the statute revision act; (4) reprinting the revised print; (5) verifying the reprint; and (6) final printing and binding.
In order to complete the whole task as quickly as possible, work on all these stages has proceeded concurrently to the fullest extent that circumstances would permit.
The first three stages are completed and the fourth stage is eighty per cent completed. The fifth stage, namely, verification of the reprint, commenced on the first of March, 1952, and it is expected that the last stage,

namely, final printing and binding, will commence before the end of the current month.
The original consolidation was prepared by a legal staff engaged by the commission, but the work of the revision has been done by the commission itself. Since the work of consolidation is complete, the legal staff of the commission has been reduced to one, who is supervising the printing and is preparing the tables and indexes.
It is expected that the reprinting of the revised prints will be completed this month, that all final text will have been submitted to the queen's printer by the end of April, and that the final printing and binding will be completed towards the end of the current year or early in 1953.
At the last session of parliament the commission was authorized to prepare a supplementary volume to include the statutes enacted at the current session of parliament. The preparation of the supplementary volume will commence at the end of the current session and the supplementary volume will be issued at the same time as the main revision.
In the case of the 1927 revision there were approximately fifty months between the appointment of the commission and the effective date of the revision. It is expected that slightly less time will be required for the new revision, although the material is twenty-five per cent greater, and the task of preparing the consolidation and revision has been complicated somewhat by the fact that during the present revision parliament has been in session for longer periods than was the case in the years immediately preceding the 1927 revision.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will be interested to learn that yesterday word was received that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the wearing of the Korean medal, which was authorized by His late Majesty King George VI for the commonwealth forces.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to extend the application of the Emergency Gold
Inquiries of the Ministry Mining Assistance Act to the years 1952 and 1953 and to clarify the provisions of subsection five of section three so as to provide for the assistance intended when this subsection was enacted in 1951.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will the interim report of Mr. Justice Ilsley in regard to war reparations, to which reference was made by the Prime Minister on November 20, 1951, as then being in the hands of the government, be tabled? If so, when may the tabling be expected; and is the Prime Minister yet in a position to say when interim payments can be made to claimants in respect of war losses?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 I received the official report of the Right Hon. Mr. Ilsley reporting on the reference that had been made to him in that respect. It is a most comprehensive document, extending over some 166 pages, with certain appendices. At a council meeting today it was received in the usual traditional form for forwarding to His Excellency the Governor General. It was decided at once that the queen's printer would be asked to advise as to what would be the most practical and expeditious manner of getting copies, either by an offset process or by printing, so that they could be made available to those interested.
There are hundreds of recommendations in the form of decisions made by the commissioner in answering questions that had been submitted in the reference, as to what classes of claims should be considered, how they should be filed, how they should be proved, and so on. I am sure that it will be of interest to all prospective claimants as a clear indication of how they will have to proceed to have their claims considered by commissioners and deputy commissioners, and will be of great assistance to the commissioners and deputy commissioners in dealing with these claims.
It was not found practicable to devise rules that could be set up in advance to determine the classes of urgent claims that could be

Inquiries of the Ministry considered, but that is dealt with in the final report. Procedures are suggested in the report to enable these urgent claims to get proper consideration and to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. There is an indication as to what information should be supplied to those who have indicated that they have what they consider to be urgent claims.
It is intended as soon as that can be done to have the report tabled and to have copies available for those who would have a real interest in securing copies. In view of the very large number of probable claimants, the number of copies available may have to run into the thousands. The offset process gives a good copy. As I say, we want to know if that would be the most practical and expeditious way in which this report may be made available for the information of the public.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that this is a matter of some importance, perhaps I may be permitted to make this suggestion. In certain cases the claimants obviously have great difficulty in supporting themselves as a result of circumstances which arose throughout the period of the war. I need not enlarge upon them; the Prime Minister is aware of certain cases in which women with no special training, and of an age at which it is not easy to take up work, have found themselves in a really desperate plight.
I would hope that even with the recognition of the difficulty of dealing with the over-all claims, particularly large claims by corporations and individuals engaged in business, it might be possible before the report is tabled to devise some method of providing interim payments for those who can clearly demonstrate a state of real need.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: That matter was before the commissioner, who realized the urgency, but he was concerned with the determination of the classes of persons who might be permitted to make claims on this fund. It is quite a substantial fund, being in the order of several million dollars. For example, he wished to determine who would be looked upon as a Canadian entitled to make a claim against this fund now at the disposal of the Canadian government. There were cases which were worthy of much sympathy, but were borderline in character. The commissioner has now drawn that line. Until he was prepared to draw that line he did not find it possible to make any recommendation about these urgent claims.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of recent press dispatches concerning the purchase of air raid sirens for the Toronto area civil defence program, is the parliamentary assistant prepared to make a statement on this subject?


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is indisposed, perhaps I may be permitted to answer this question. In view of the press statements ascribed to Air Vice Marshal T. A. Lawrence, civil defence director for Toronto, about the supply of sirens for the Toronto area, it might be useful for me to make a brief review of the background for the choice of the particular sirens now ready for shipment in quantity to Toronto. Two years ago the selection of a suitable air raid siren for Canada was turned	over to the
defence research board. After the needs of Canadian cities and the characteristics of various models had been thoroughly studied, it was decided early last year that a twin-note siren of the sort used by Great Britain during world war II was still the most satisfactory for all purposes. In reaching this decision, there was the closest collaboration with United Kingdom and United States civil defence authorities, who also were carrying out extensive research in this field.
As a matter of interest, the sirens selected for Canada served effectively in Great Britain during the war years and are now being brought back into use in that country. As sirens of the type decided upon could not be purchased quickly elsewhere, manufacture was arranged in Canada with a company in Toronto.
The decision to select this particular siren was made after satisfactory tests had been carried out in Ottawa and Windsor. The prototype model has also been satisfactorily tested in Winnipeg.
Of the first order placed last year for 200 sirens, 35 were allotted to the Toronto area. After these have been properly sited, it will be possible for the Toronto civil defence authorities to determine their further requirements. The sirens for Toronto have been built in accordance with technical data supplied to Ottawa by the province of Ontario

on May 30 of last year. On February 18 of this year advice was received that the Toronto and York committee on civil defence had just completed a report on sirens. As this report has not yet been received in Ottawa, no amendment has yet been made in instructions given the manufacturer on the basis of the Ontario recommendations of last May.
I might say that Saturday of last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare and General Worthington attended a conference in Toronto with the Ontario minister responsible for civil defence, the mayor of Toronto and the members of the Toronto and York committee on civil defence.
The siren warning system and other important aspects of the civil defence problem were thoroughly reviewed. The co-operative attitude among the three levels of government evident at this meeting will no doubt continue to mark progress in this field.
Full study will of course be given by federal civil defence officers to any further recommendations received on the development of a satisfactory siren warning system for selected Canadian communities. In this connection may I read a telegram which was received from Toronto under date of March 5. It is as follows:
Hon. Paul Martin,
Minister of National Health and Welfare,
Ottawa.
May I again express our appreciation to you for conferring with the Toronto and York civil defence committee last Saturday. The conference was a most harmonious one and very beneficial in creating a better understanding as to the position of the three levels of government regarding civil defence. Regarding statement appearing in last night's paper, I wish you to know this was issued by a paid employee of the committee without any authority or knowledge of the committee and does not represent our views.
Allan A. Lamport, Mayor,
Chairman of the Executive Committee
I must apologize for omitting to acknowledge the receiving of notice of this question from the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees). I thank them for giving me due notice.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Henry: In view of recent press dispatches concerning the health examination of immigrants coming to Canada, is the parliamentary assistant prepared to make a statement on this subject?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I thought this question was effectively answered in the Globe and Mail of March 5, but perhaps it might be wise if I made a short statement with respect to examination of immigrants. This is carried out by forty-three full-time Canadian doctors employed overseas, When emergency requires, additional Canadian doctors who are doing post-graduate work overseas are temporarily employed. X-rays are required of all over the age of II years. Where the parents have given a history or show indications of healed tuberculosis, the children are X-rayed as well.
Physical examination is given and care taken to avoid admitting epileptics, mental oases, tuberculosis, trachoma and venereal disease. I might say that not only is the prospective immigrant examined, but all his family are examined. Then if the head of a family comes to Canada and wants to bring out his family from the old country we know they are physically fit as well. All immigrants must produce a certificate of vaccination at the port of embarkation. The sick are examined at the port of entry and are placed in quarantine in disembarkation hospitals and retained there until they recover. Although the flow of immigration was heaviest in western Canada in the early days of its settlement, the incidence of tuberculosis remained lower in western Canada than in any other part of the country.
Recently Ontario has had a heavy influx of immigrants-104,000 during the past year and* approximately 500,000 since the war. Yet today the incidence of tuberculosis has reached the phenomenal low in Ontario of 13 per 100,000, and the incidence of tuberculosis in immigrants coming to Canada is -043 per cent. The mental cases over the past five years have numbered 200 in 500,000 immigrants, one in 2,500.
When the immigrants arrive in Canada they are given medical care until employed. If immigrants are placed with relatives upon their arrival in Canada they are given no further medical care, but in the case of mass labour immigration they and their dependents are treated locally by medical officers until they are placed' in employment. This medical care is given in co-operation with the Department of Labour and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of these facts I do not think the criticism is justified.


Mr. Graydon:: Mr. Speaker, may I seek your leave to adjourn this debate?
204

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. McCusker: Some people do not like to Resources and Development. What is the hear the truth.	route of the trans-Canada highway from
Bonshaw, Prince Edward Island, to the city HANS NEITZ	of Charlottetown?



QUESTION AS TO EXTENSION OF CLEMENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have given him notice. It arises out of a press dispatch of last evening. Is the minister in a position to say when a decision will be made as to whether clemency will be extended to Hans Neitz, German soldier sentenced to life imprisonment for the attempted murder of an R.C.A.F. officer? Will the members of the court which sentenced Neitz be consulted before a decision is made?


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps I should answer the question. This case was considered last on the 12th of September, 1951, when it was decided that clemency would not be granted at that time. If the case is again considered, and if it appears to be appropriate, the regular course of discussing the matter with the court will be followed.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melforl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have given him notice. Has the Department of Justice appealed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island that Bill 82, chapter 16 of the 1949 statutes, the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, is ultra vires of the powers of this parliament under the British North America Act? If not, will it take such action?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. We have been following the matter, and our information is that the Prince Edward Island potato marketing board intends to file an appeal from this decision, in which we will intervene to support the validity of the federal legislation.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ROUTE FROM BONSHAW TO CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of
[Mr. Graydon.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that is a question that should be placed on the order paper.



EXPLOSIVES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence before he leaves. Has he considered holding an inquiry into the origin of the bomb which exploded in Ottawa yesterday taking the life of a thirteen-year-old boy?


An hon. Member:: Read the papers.


Brooke Claxton: That matter has not been brought to our attention by the civic authorities, who no doubt will be making an inquiry. If they do, the resources of the Department of National Defence will be at their disposal in accordance with the usual practice.


William Joseph Browne: Has the minister considered the possibility that the bomb may have come out of the ordnance department?


An hon. Member:: Read the papers.


Brooke Claxton: If it is a bomb of military origin it must have come out of ordnance at some time, but that we do not know, and it has not been brought to our attention.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister lay on the table of the house a copy of the revised rules of the Canadian National pension plan so that we may have a more precise picture of the new plan than we were able to get from the press of yesterday?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The revised rules of the new pension plan are rather voluminous. I understand there is a summary of them, and if it is agreeable to the house I do not think there is any objection to that being tabled.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. E. W. George for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long in this debate. With the exception of the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John)-and incidentally I congratulate them most warmly on the very, able speeches they delivered-the speakers, particularly on the opposition side, spent a good deal of time dealing with matters which are perhaps essentially budgetary in their nature. As a preface to the few remarks I am going to make this afternoon it might be useful if I were to announce, subject of course to the usual reservation for unforeseen contingencies, that I intend to bring down my budget on Tuesday, April 8, at the usual hour.
As hon. members will appreciate, this is a time of the year when both I and my officials are kept pretty busy in connection with budgetary preparation. It goes on during the year, but I suppose that in the two or three months that precede the bringing down of the budget I must see literally hundreds of delegations in person and receive a great many more representations in writing from both groups and individual taxpayers; and let me say at once that in my opinion this feature of budget consideration is an essential part of the preparation of the budget. It is true that the government has at its disposal, through official sources and otherwise, complete information with respect to the position of business in general, as well as of individual businesses, but that information can be no substitute for the detailed particulars of the impact of a tax or taxes upon an individual business. For that reason I welcome such data, and I do not see how a fair budget could be prepared unless one were in receipt of assistance of that kind. It enables a finance minister to discharge what after all is his essential duty and responsibility in the preparation of a budget, that is, the distribution of the total burden which has to be imposed upon the taxpayers by as fair a method as it is possible for human ingenuity, wisdom and resourcefulness to devise; and that is what we endeavour to do. That is the sort of representation and assistance I most heartily welcome.
I may say in passing that the treasury board completed its consideration of the estimates last week. They are now in the hands of the printer, and I hope will be tabled in
The Address-Mr. Abbott the house very shortly. So the task from here on is to ascertain what if any changes should be made in our taxation structure, and what form the budget should take.
There is, however, something which has arisen more particularly within the course of the last two or three years which has given me a good deal of concern, and which I did not experience earlier in my tenure of office as Minister of Finance. That is a form of activity by special pressure groups, I suppose referred to as lobbies, a type of activity which I think has been considerably more common in other countries, and perhaps more particularly in the United States, where the governmental system is different from our own. What prompted me to make the remarks I am making now was a circular letter which came to my attention only yesterday morning. I am going to ask the house to bear with me while I read it in full, because I think, or at least I hope, the house will agree that in certain of its aspects this circular letter is an insult to the intelligence of the members of the house and a reflection upon their integrity.
The letter to which I refer was sent out by the federation of automobile dealer associations of Canada. Let me hasten to say that I have a great many friends among automobile dealers. Indeed one of my oldest friends is a very successful automobile dealer, and I do not for a moment think that most of the dealers who may belong to this association would be sympathetic to the sort of material put out in this circular letter. This is on the letterhead of the federation of automobile dealer associations of Canada, with executive offices at 145 Yonge street, Toronto 1, Ontario, and is dated December 27, 1951.
It reads-and many of the words (see italics) are underlined:
Bulletin No. 166
To Members of Member Associations:
Federation is now in the midst of an intensified campaign to persuade the government to ease present discriminatory credit restrictions and taxes. We need your help-we must have it-to impress upon the public and the government that a national protest against such discrimination is developing.
Let me interject that I have no quarrel with a statement of that kind.
As one major step in this campaign, we urge you to talk to your local member of parliament NOW, during the parliamentary recess, about this problem that so vitally affects you and the people as a whole. Talk to him through your association. If you can't do that, talk to him individually-the main thing is to see him right away, regardless of his party affiliation.
I have no quarrel with the circular up to that point.
We have retained Editorial Services Limited, of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, as public relations

The Address-Mr. Abbott
counsel to advise and help federation in this campaign. Your interview with your M.P. is an essential part of our plan.
Members of parliament understand, appreciate and value good publicity. We want you to enlist your member as a spokesman for our cause, and, when you do, we through Editorial Services, will provide a great deal of national publicity for him- publicity he will like and that will do you a lot of good.
This is how we will create that publicity:
1.	Induce your M.P. to authorize statements which can be used by Editorial Services for publicity on a national basis.
2.	We likely will be able to arrange (through an established speakers' bureau) for the member to address an important club or other public body on the subject. There will be similar nation-wide publicity on his speech.
3.	It may be possible for Editorial Services to get your member on the air, for a talk, forum, or interview. The same coast to coast publicity will follow.
4.	When he speaks about our troubles in the house, a report of his speech will go to all wire services, every newspaper and every radio station in Canada, through Editorial Services' plan.
Your job will be to advise us of the member's intentions. Editorial Services will get in touch with him immediately in order to publicize his statement in every possible way.
The men who plan the budget and who will modify or continue the present discrimination against our industry, and the public, will heed the pressure of public opinion as expressed through national publicity. That is why we emphasize the importance of stressing publicity value to your member.
Here is What We Urge You to Do
1.	Arrange an early interview with your M.P.- right now, while he is at home. Parliament will reassemble about the middle of January-you must talk to him immediately.
2.	Know the subject thoroughly before you see him. Here are the key points to stress:
(a)	Both credit restrictions and taxation are discriminatory-they impose an unjust burden upon people who must have cars for work or business, and upon an essential industry.
(b)	They are a genuine hardship on average and low wage earners.
(c)	They are a special hardship upon manual workers. If you wish, read to your member all or part of D. A. Amory's brief that begins on page 38 of the report of the 1951 F.A.D.A. annual meeting.
Be sure you read and understand the digest of facts enclosed, then leave it with your member.
3.	Don't bore or confuse your member with a lot of figures and statistics during the interview. The digest you hand him can speak for you.
4.	You probably have a most potent weapon in the experience of your own business-better than the general facts, which do not always impress a member. He has the interests of his own constituents closest at heart.
Make your interview a "home-town deal"\
(a)	If you are suffering because of credit terras, tell your member-tell him how much.
(b)	It would be well, if you are in trouble, to tell him how much. He is interested in you, as well as every other voter.
(c)	Point out the number of people in your community-in his constituency-who must have automobiles in order to make a living.

(d)	If you know of any actual examples of hardship because would-be purchasers can't afford essential automobiles as a result of present credit terms or "luxury" taxes (or both), tell your M.P.
5.	We want first to have credit restrictions relaxed. It is generally believed that big monthly payments are the greatest obstacle to prospective purchasers.
6.	Don't forget to emphasize how the public suffers through discrimination.
There are many more people than dealers, and, although your M.P. will be interested in your plight, he will be more interested in the plight of the people affected by unfair credit terms and taxes.
7.	Finally, ask your member to act:
(a)	To speak out at Ottawa, and anywhere else where it may do good, on your behalf, and on behalf of credit-hit and tax-hurt would-be purchasers-the public as a whole. He will want the resulting publicity-and so do we!
(b)	To urge the Minister of Finance to amend the credit regulations (primarily) as you believe they should be changed.
(c)	To promise that he will seek relief for you and the public immediately upon his return to Ottawa, and that he will write you the result of his efforts, for your own information and for publicity.
8.	Inform federation quickly of your efforts and results, so that we and our public relations counsel may take advantage of every opportunity for publicity.
9.	We haven't much time-arrange your interview today-the quicker we and you can influence public opinion, the quicker we will get relief.
10.	Please return the report on the enclosed form promptly.
With best wishes for success in this project, and our heartiest thanks for your co-operation,
Howard B. Moore General Manager
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on that letter. I think it speaks for itself. May I say to the house, and I am sure this view is shared by all hon. members, that the finance minister is particularly allergic to both pressure and pressure groups. As I said earlier in my remarks, I welcome, I invite representations by individual taxpayers or groups of taxpayers. I strongly object to these tactics, which I am afraid have been common in other jurisdictions but in my experience have not been known here until recently, and which attempt indirectly to influence members of parliament.
That is my first point, and the second is related to it. It is related to tobacco and the tax on tobacco. There has been a great deal of talk about the tax being too high, and I have not the slightest quarrel with that talk or with that argument. The tobacco growers have seen me on two occasions, and have provided me with an extremely well prepared and very helpful brief which has been carefully considered. I have had representations from the tobacco companies and from others indicating that they thought the

tax was too high and ought to be reduced. Those were the usual representations the Minister of Finance receives, and I have no quarrel with those representations.
However, I have also a file of letters from retail dealers informing me that they have had great difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies of cigarettes over the past few months. I should say that most of those letters are prefaced with the statement: We want you to have this information hut we do not want to get in wrong with the tobacco companies, so we would like you to treat this letter as confidential. Of course, I have done so. There are some which are not in that category, and one of the most recent is one I hold in my hand. It is dated February 28, 1952, and is from Mr. Slaven, a druggist in Sydney, Nova Scotia. It reads:
Hon. D. C. Abbott, Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
I was certainly pleased to notice by the press that you were aware what the tobacco companies were doing.
While we hated to lose sales, it annoyed us to realize the tobacco companies were trying to mislead the government and the public.
As a matter of interest, and also to substantiate your statements:
Shortly after the settlement of their strike at Montreal their agent (Imperial Tobacco Company) came in and cut our stock, taking back anything that was over a month old (the normal amount on hand is two months supply). They did that with the retailers the first month; the following month they did it with the wholesalers; they tried to kid us it was done on purpose so that we would always have very fresh stock on hand.
After doing that we found our orders were cut to about one quarter of our needs. Until you made that statement at the end of the year that no change would be made, they kept reducing the orders, the result being that we would have Imperial cigarettes for three days and then have none on our shelves for four or five days.
Purchases, 1st Oct. 1950 to Feb. 28 1951-$2396.00 Purchases, 1st Oct. 1951 to Feb. 28 1952-$1779.00
Difference $617.00
Based on the increased price our dollar sales volume would have been much greater than the previous period.
I'm a non-smoker but I believe the tax is too high. However I do object to the method used by the company in an attempt to intimidate you and force your hand.
Yours sincerely,
George B. Slaven
Mr. Slaven is a man after my own heart.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister say
whether this letter has been referred to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) for an opinion as to whether or not the action referred to is a violation of our laws?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it has not. I have just received the letter, and no doubt that matter
The Address-Mr. Blair can be looked into. I have no means of knowing whether the assertions made in Mr. Slaven's letter are true. They may or may not be true, and I am not able to verify them. As I told the house, I have received quite a number of letters to the same effect. If it is true, then I suggest to the house that that is a highly questionable way of endeavouring to influence public opinion as to what should or should not be done about a tax.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say. I leave the statement which I have made to the judgment of the house with reference to whatever it may be necessary to do, but I hope I shall not be influenced by this sort of thing in my judgment of what is right and proper so far as budgetary recommendations are concerned.
I want to conclude on this note. Whatever defects the Minister of Finance may have, and they are numerous, he is a very hard man to frighten.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one question? I should like to get a copy of the first letter he read, because I am sure it is of interest to everyone in the house. Where did the minister obtain it, so that I may get it from the same source?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was given to me by a friend. I could have a copy made for the hon. member, if he wishes it.


Some hon. Members:: It is on Hansard now.


Mr. Ferguson:: I should like to add my voice to that of the leader of the C. C. F. party and say that this letter ought to be handed to the Minister of Justice. The man who is suffering is the tobacco grower.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member speaks now, I shall have to consider that he has spoken in the debate.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: I should like first to compliment the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address. Their speeches were well prepared, interesting and well delivered. The debate on the address affords me an opportunity of discussing the situation confronting the textile industry, which is of marked importance to the constituency of Lanark and the whole Dominion of Canada.
Lanark has twelve textile mills, and the recession in that industry has been responsible for considerable unemployment, particularly in the latter part of 1951. It reached its peak in the first month of this year. The plants in this area are chiefly in the wool textile and knitting branches.
208	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair Government orders for textile products have been of considerable assistance in easing out a difficult situation. In fact, some of these mills would be shut down if it were not for defence contracts. Defence contracts for 26 million yards of fabric and
750.000	blankets have avoided more serious trouble. Many plants are on short time or have dropped second shifts. Some have reduced first shifts to the point where there is a lay-off of from five to forty per cent of the workers.
In obtaining these highly competitive contracts, plants had to cut their prices down to costs in order to keep running. However, defence contracts are temporary business and industry will require something more in order to be maintained. But before entering into a discussion of the present conditions existing in the industry, it would be well to place before the house a review of the importance of the textile industry as manufacturers of textile products, and also so far as manufacturing is concerned. The industry has 791 plants in Canada and employs over
100.000	men and women. Plants exist in 269 communities in Canada. I submit a table showing the number of plants, municipalities and the number of employees by provinces.
Primary Textile Mills in Canada
Textile Munici-plants palities Employees
Ontario 	358	115	41,400Quebec 	361	108	47,500Western provinces 	31	15	1,400Maritimes and Newfoundland 	41	31	3,900Totals for Canada 	791	269	94,200
It will be noted that while the major number of plants are located in Ontario and Quebec, the industry is growing in western Canada and gives employment to almost
4,000	people in the maritimes and Newfoundland. It ranks first in Canada in wages and salaries paid. It is interesting by way of comparison to note that the gross annual production of the industry is over $700 million. This is equal to five times the amount of Canada's gold production, and is more than the combined value of the wheat and the oat crop of Canada. It is mainly an industry of small towns and villages, and in many cases comprises the main source of employment. One-third of the 791 factories are located in towns and villages with a population of fewer than 5,000 people, and half the mills are in communities of fewer than 25,000 people. In some of the towns in the Ottawa valley 100 per cent of all the persons who are engaged in manufacturing are textile workers. In the larger centres, 

there are as many people engaged in primary textile mills as in all other manufacturing establishments combined.
Textile mills in the Ottawa valley in one year, 1949, paid out over $3 million in salaries and wages, and they spent $4,750,000 for raw materials. Workers in textile mills in Canada are among the highest paid textile workers in the world. Since 1939 there has been an upward revision of wages and the wage rate is now 280 per cent of the rate on that date. In common with all wage earners the present high cost of living is becoming a serious problem. The average or late earnings of primary textile workers in Great Britain are about 45 per cent of the earnings of Canadian textile workers, France 35 per cent, Italy 34 per cent, Czechoslovakia 33 per cent, The Netherlands 32 per cent, Germany 27 per cent and Japan 7 per cent. The average earnings of primary textile workers in Canada is not quite as high as in the United States, but the same differential exists when similar industries in Canada and in the United States are compared. The tariff on textiles entering the United States bears a higher ratio to Canadian tariffs than United States textile wages bear to Canadian wages.
The woollen and knit goods branch of the industry provides employment for 42,500 people. It is comprised of 567 mills located in 170 localities. These mills produce principally blankets, carpets, worsted cloth and knitted goods. The industry is expanding and since 1945 it has spent $250 million on new equipment and expansion. It becomes apparent therefore that the textile industry is a very important branch of our Canadian economy.
In a period of war or preparation for war a healthy textile industry becomes as important in the production of material as those industries producing guns or aeroplanes. Since 1939, the textile industry of Canada has been capable of meeting the demands for war materials and at the same time has been able to meet the civilian requirements for goods. The large number of employees form an important market for Canadian farm products.
In the war of 1939-1945 practically all the textiles used by the Canadian forces were made out of Canadian materials. We can well be proud of the record of this industry. In that period Britain and the United States could not have supplied Canada's requirements, and in fact the Canadian industry was called upon to supply quantities of materials to our allies in addition to supplying our own civilian and war demands.

During the past six months the industry has suffered a recession. Imports from Britain, United States, Italy and other European countries, have offered severe competition to our Canadian mills. Our tariff is lower than that of any other country in the world in so far as textiles are concerned, except Sweden, and in that country all imports are controlled. A great percentage of the wool fabrics that have been imported into Canada came from Great Britain, and there is no control or restriction on the volume of those imports. The following list gives the average duty charged by countries on the f.o.b. price of the four standard types of woollen cloth: Australia, 32 per cent; Belgium, 31 per cent; Canada, 13-1 per cent; France, 33-9 per cent; Germany, 23-7 per cent; Great Britain, 20-8 per cent; Italy, 27 per cent; The Netherlands, 18-9 per cent; Spain, 126-6 per cent; Sweden, 5-6 per cent; United States, 36 [DOT] 4 per cent.
The woollen and worsted cloth branch of the industry has been mainly affected by imports. In 1949 the woollen mills of Canada supplied 63 per cent of the domestic market, but by 1951 this had fallen to 53 per cent, and some 2,500 workers were unemployed. In worsted fabrics, the Canadian mills dropped from 47 per cent of the domestic market to 39 per cent in 1951. Britain ranks as the chief exporter of woollen goods to Canada, and has now obtained an increasing share of our domestic market, amounting to 86 per cent of all imports. Canadian wages are double the British rates -and this added to a low 13| per cent tariff on United Kingdom woollens makes it very difficult for our mills to meet the competition. Other low wage countries have increased their sales accordingly.
A recent report of the bureau of statistics shows that the import of fibres and textiles increased to $483.5 million for the year 1951 as against $364.5 million the year previous.
The record of wool fabric imports for the past 12 years is interesting. Pre-war and wartime figures are not too significant. When an industry has invested money, built plants and employed people, it cannot appreciate being driven back to some prior point in history.
This record of imports is as follows: Post-war average 1946-49	1950
Canadian production	
28-5	26 0Imports	
14-4	13-342-9	39-3
per per cent cent
Per cent Canadian	 66	66
The Address-Mr. Blair There is a government order factor in the Canadian production figures which is as follows:
Post-war
average
1946-49	1950	1951Defence production	
-5	1-5	4-1
When defence figures are included, it covers up the Canadian industry set-back in the domestic civilian market. If we remove the
defence figures, then the table		reads as
follows:	Post-war average 1946-49	1950 1951
	per	per per
	cent	cent cent
Per cent Canadian of	civilian	
business 	
66	65 58Increasing foreign	competition is	shown inrespect of worsted	fabrics as set	out in thefollowing table:	1950	1951(millions (millions	of yards) of yards)	Canadian production	
5-6	4-8Imports from Britain.	
5*6	5-7Imports from other countries -9	1-7Total 	12-2
It is not sufficient to state that Canada is a mature industrial nation. It is true that, with better equipped factories, we can now stand competition. But the situation as regards the importation of textiles is much more complicated, especially British competition. We must make it possible for the British to earn money here in order to buy our primary products. We are sympathetic to a program of helping Britain, and to help the British nation reestablish itself as a great world power. In the cause of peace and for the security of the world Britain must be strong.
However, we must give consideration to the fact that Britain and other European countries have lower manufacturing costs for textiles than in Canada because of the lower labour costs, and some degree of subsidization. The volume of textile importations is now replacing Canadian-made materials. It does not seem fair that the textile industry should bear the whole brunt of imports to the point of unemployment.
Speaking in the budget debate on Novem-1951 ber 1, 1949, as reported in Hansard at page 2U4	1360, I made this statement-and remember,
____ this was two years ago:
33-8 To the degree that the Canadian market can absorb British textiles, I agree that every encour-Petir. agement should be extended as a means of helping cent Great Britain earn dollars to buy our primary 63 products. I submit, however, that it is not in the
210	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair
national interest for the textile industry to be forced to close its doors, and for workers, who have given many years of their lives to developing this trade, to be thrown out on the street to look for work wherever they can find it. Unless external conditions and factors today threatening this vitally important industry are closely studied, and their effect constantly observed by the government, the conditions I have just warned about are not beyond the realm of possibility.
Earlier in the same speech I said:
This industry played a most important part in the war effort of Canada, and in my opinion it is essential that it be maintained as a healthy, virile industry as part of our economic defence plans of the future.
Imports of cotton goods are increasing. At one time previous to 1939, our mills supplied 70 per cent of all our domestic requirements. Last year this had been reduced to 58 per cent. In 1950, the United States exported 147 million yards to Canada, and last year increased their exports to this country by over 10 million yards. Low wage countries such as Japan, Holland, and Czechoslovakia increased their cotton exports to Canada by 100 per cent.
The amount of full-fashioned hosiery from the United States has increased. Such goods may be sold at a loss in Canada by American manufacturers, provided they sell for the same price in the United States. This is one means of unloading surplus stock.
The United States has increased her exports to Canada of synthetic textile dresses for women. In 1949 we imported 114,228 garments, in 1950 we imported 186,502 garments or dresses. The Canadian import quotas on garments were removed early in 1951. Canadian synthetic textile manufacturers feel that American manufacturers are using the Canadian market to unload surpluses. This branch of the industry employs over 20,000 people.
Japan has invaded the field of knitted goods. Last year 30 per cent of the sales on the Canadian glove market were Japanese gloves. Japan pays textile workers one-twelfth of the Canadian wage rate.
The Canadian textile industry is entirely dependent on the Canadian market. Canadian exports in textiles are very small for the reason that Canadian costs of production make it impossible for Canadian goods to compete on outside markets. The products of the Canadian industry are varied. Every piece of imported textiles is competitive with our products. This is shown in the statistics of yardage. In 1949 our wool cloth mills supplied 64 per cent of Canadian consumption, and today only supply 54 per cent. The knitting branch of the industry has now lost 20 per cent of the market.
IMr. Blair.]

We must be prepared to accept imports to pay for our exports. It would not be possible to arrive at a stage where all imports are not competitive. But there is no reason why we cannot arrange standards of competition. We do not want to arrive at a situation where we will give up part of the British market to other countries who will take their goods in payment. The Canadian industry imports a large amount of yarns and wool. It should be possible to devise a policy that would encourage the Canadian industry and at the same time not deprive the British. In order to develop trade channels between Britain and Canada neither country can risk taking unfair advantage in working out trading agreements.
Canadian textile workers have been affected in larger proportions than before, and, as Canadian wages are among the highest paid for this work and Canadian customs duties are quite low in comparison with those of other countries, these differences have caused unemployment. Canadian unions have sent delegations to Ottawa to intercede with the government. Some long-range program is required. If this is not devised, our mills will have no defence against imports which are produced more cheaply in other countries.
There are factors other than competition which have helped create the present slump in textiles. At the outbreak of the Korean war there was a very sharp rise in prices. Buyers overbought because they thought there would be a period when cloth would be in short supply. The price of raw materials increased tremendously and they were difficult to obtain. While it was thought that the buying boom which had started at the outbreak of the Korean war would be temporary, it was not anticipated that the market would break so quickly.
The Canadian consumer is interested in the cost of commodities and these are often reflected in the cost of the raw materials. The price of wool increased 300 per cent last season and in a short time was down to the level of the previous year. Again, in the fall of 1951, it suddenly jumped 60 per cent in one week. Clothing prices to the consumer do not react accordingly and the price of wool in the spring of 1951 was never reflected in the retail price for wool textiles. It must be remembered that there is a period of approximately 15 months before wool reaches the retailer in the form of manufactured goods. This allows for the averaging of costs.
In the period to which I have referred, that of the Korean war, it took six to ten times the amount of capital to finance inventories. About this time credit restrictions were

applied. Customers could not accept orders and when buying was slowed down the mills were left with heavy inventories. Bank or credit restrictions, applying principally to one hundred per cent Canadian-owned companies, further cramped the financial ability to provide working capital and to meet reinvestment in inventories. The clamping down of credit restrictions coincided with the peak of the raw material markets. This financial problem was further complicated by having to meet substantial increases in wage rates, higher taxes and so on.
Substantial increases in the price of food, housing, rental and the cost of living in general have resulted in the public not being able to buy at these high prices. The shrinking world demand for textiles, necessitating the liquidation of inventories, is a common problem to the textile industry throughout the world. It is true of the Canadian textile industry as well. Canada is not a large exporter of textiles and this industry is almost wholly dependent upon the domestic market. Today, because of the almost universal effort to liquidate inventories, European and United States manufacturers are quoting prices in Canada that make it impossible for a domestic manufacturer to compete, except in a few specialties which require prompt delivery. Today imports from Italy are replacing British as well as Canadian cloth, as our mills go on short time with some being actually shut down, two of which are in my own constituency.
The question in the minds of many Canadians is whether or not dumping is responsible for the situation which has arisen and, if so, to what extent? Some months ago a joint labour-management committee of the textile and needle trades protested to the Canadian government against the dumping of United States goods in the Canadian market at prices with which it was impossible to compete and stated that such action was causing widespread unemployment in the industry.
At that time the press reported that the assistant deputy minister of customs assured the delegation that departmental experts had worked out a course which they believed would remedy the situation. This report implies, if it implies anything, that the government recognizes that dumping actually exists and that they have worked out a solution. So far as I have heard, there has been no action by the government to meet this situation. Meanwhile Canadian mills are continuing to slow down or have discontinued operations. An example of this is the recent
The Address-Mr. Fair closing down of a part of the Courtaulds plant at Cornwall for an indefinite period.
Parliament should be informed now if dumping is actually taking place and, if so, what action the government proposes to take under existing statutes for the prevention of such practices. Unemployment in the industry is increasing and would be more serious were it not for the temporary palliative of defence orders which make it possible for mills to continue operations, if only on a part-time basis. But defence orders are not permanent. This whole problem must be considered in the light of present-day competition. The textile industry of Canada is an essential part of our economy. Should the present cold war materialize into an allout conflict, this industry will be called upon to play its part as it did in the last war. It must not be allowed to pass out of existence because our government has failed to take the action which is necessary and which is within its power under existing statutes.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, as is customary in this debate, my first word is one of congratulation to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the excellent job they did in their statements.
I realize, as do many others, that at the present time our country is faced with many difficulties, not the least of which is the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in and around Regina. I was glad to see that on Wednesday evening we succeeded in passing Bill No. 7, for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease.
It took some considerable time to pass that bill as a number of angles were discussed and considerable information disseminated. It is now our hope that no further time will be lost in doing everything necessary to stamp out this disease. During the first three days of the week there was considerable discussion about the officials of the department and the veterinary surgeons who were concerned with this disease. It is not my intention at this time in any way to condemn or criticize these officials. These men are not here to speak for themselves. They will be before the agriculture committee a little later and it will be time enough for us to judge their efficiency or otherwise after we have heard from them.
I repeat my request to the government to make the compensation quite generous to men who have lost stock. By doing that they will encourage farmers whose stock may be affected later on to make an early report of any outbreak that may occur.

The Address-Mr. Fair
There is another matter that I want to take up in that connection. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), and their colleagues will give favourable consideration to exempting from income tax assessments any amounts that may be paid by way of compensation to those farmers. I feel that is only fair and right because they are losing considerable money and also the opportunity to make money during the time that their farms are denuded of livestock. Again, they will be using the money they are now paid as compensation to purchase livestock to restock their farms later on. I feel that irreparable damage has been done by the prolonged debate that took place in the house. It would have been much better if the bill had been passed in much less time because the publicity that has now spread all over Canada, the United States and other places will not do us any good. Action was needed at that time, and I hope we will have action now without any further delay.
In the speech from the throne there is the following:
You will be asked to consider legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, and the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.
I am very glad to see that announcement in the speech from the throne because for many months we have been pressing the government to make better allowances available to burnt-out pensioners. As a basis for the claim of these people I should like to read into the record once again the promise made by Sir Robert Borden when addressing the Canadian fighting forces at Vimy Ridge in 1917. In part it is as follows:
You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such strain without breaking; but you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come ... I give you this assurance: that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done . . . The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.
This is the promise that was made by the then prime minister of Canada. Though it was made some thirty-five years ago, I feel

it is just as binding on the government of today and the people of Canada today as it was at that time. On the 17th of May last the Canadian Legion presented a brief to the special committee which was sitting at that time to deal with veterans affairs. They asked for certain improvements in the benefits payable to burnt-out pensioners, disability pensioners and others. While at the last session the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) did bring in legislation which was quite satisfactory as far as the disability pensioners are concerned, nothing whatever was done for the burnt-out pensioners, but he did make the statement that early in this session the special committee on veterans affairs would be set up again and that any recommendation made by that committee could be made retroactive to the first of January this year.
Because practically everybody in the country has been receiving pay increases and because the value of our dollar has now decreased to about 50 cents, I feel that the burnt-out pensioners also deserve to have an increase. Many of them are not able to work. Many of them have suffered plenty up to the present time, and I believe it is now our duty to increase their allowances at least to the same extent as we did those of the disability pensioners. Therefore I hope no time will be lost in looking after this matter.
I understand that in the province of Alberta legislation is being proposed to provide pensions for needy widows 60 to 65 years of age if it can be proved that they are in need of such pension. While we have granted old age pensions to an increased number, I feel that the amount of such pensions should be further increased. There does not seem to be very much done to bring down the cost of living, and because of the decrease in the value of the dollar I feel that a further increase of at least $10 a month for old age pensioners would be very welcome and would help to keep them out of financial difficulties.
There is another group for whom many of us have advocated help for some time. I refer to the physically incapacitated, and I am not speaking of those who are 60 years of age and over. I refer to all those who are physically incapacitated and are not able to earn their own living. Many people in Canada, with full use of all their limbs and senses, are having a great deal of difficulty in making a living, and one can realize how much harder it is for those who are physically incapacitated. For the past two years I believe the provincial governments have been making a survey to secure information about these people, and as soon as the results of the survey are made known I hope that no

time will be lost in doing something for them. I hope that before the end of the session the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will introduce legislation to provide pensions for them.
Another matter that has caused quite a little talk for some time is the trans-Canada highway. In the press not many months ago I read an article to the effect that there is still some difficulty about the Kicking Horse pass route. If some of us had had our way earlier in the program the trans-Canada highway route would not have gone that way. We pointed out on many occasions that bad snow conditions exist there in the winter and sometimes in the summer as well. There was a good illustration of that only last summer, and I understand they are now having difficulties about the route through the Kicking Horse pass. The government of Alberta was blamed for being responsible for approving that route, but I think they were wrongly blamed. The provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia favoured the southern route, and it would seem to be foolishness for the government of Alberta to do anything but approve and build the connecting link.
It will give service to at least the southern part of Alberta which is not nearly as heavily populated as central and northern Alberta. However, Alberta will not be content with that, and it is the intention of their government to have no less than three highways spanning the province from east to west. By the end of this summer it is the intention to have highway No. 16 from Lloydminster to Edmonton completed. Most of it is paved at the present time. Approximately 46 or 47 miles still remain to be paved, and the program of the government provides for the completion of that work during the coming summer. In the Edmonton Journal of February 8, under the heading "British Columbia officials studying Yellowhead road", we find this:
A new British Columbia transprovincial highway from the Alberta boundary through the Yellow-head pass to take in the existing road system leading from Kamloops to the Pacific coast, is being studied, according to a report from Victoria.
Public works department planners and officials of Trans-Mountain Oil Pipeline Company, which will start shortly on the construction of an oil pipeline from Edmonton by way of Jasper to Vancouver, are meeting in Victoria. They are trying to co-ordinate necessary road planning particularly in the North Thompson valley.
Public works officials in Victoria have stated that a new transprovincial highway to include the North Thompson highway is "bound to come", paralleling the pipeline route.
I believe we were on sound ground two or three years ago when we advocated the Yellowhead pass route and that we are on sound ground today, and that in the near
The Address-Mr. Fair future we will have a hard surfaced highway through the most practical and appropriate route across the Rockies-the Yellowhead pass.
Now I go to another subject with which I am quite familiar, having been very close to it for the past thirty-eight years. For a little while I should like to discuss the question of agriculture. In the Rural Cooperator of February 26 last, published in Toronto, under the heading "Farmers take the rap" we find this editorial:
Everything indicates that the Canadian farmer is about to take a beating. In fact, he has already begun to have a taste of it.
Prices are falling. Eggs. Poultry. Beef. Hogs. Lamb. They are all on the toboggan.
The farmer isn't feeling very happy about it. If other groups in the country were also taking a licking it mightn't make him any happier, but at least he wouldn't have the feeling that it is all so very unjust and unfair.
Industrial workers in Canada are still getting pay increases. They haven't lost a strike in years. When their living costs go up they ask for more money and with or without a strike they usually end up getting more money.
The^investor class seems to get its increases without even asking for them. Corporate profits last year increased nearly 25 per cent over the previous year.
But the farmers' income is shrinking.
Why?
Perhaps one of the reasons may be that the Canadian government is not at this time particularly interested in seeing farm prices maintained.
There is reason to believe, on the contrary, that the government is privately gratified that farm prices are on the skids.
We have heard on excellent authority that certain economists at Ottawa have advanced the opinion that the most convenient-and politically safe-way to check inflation in this country is to depress farm prices.
Just as an aside, they are doing a very good job of it.
Our government may have listened to that advice.
Our government could also check inflation by freezing wages and corporation profits.
But that would take an extraordinary amount of political courage. Organized labour is powerful and controls a lot of votes. Big business, too, is said to have at least a moderate influence on parliament hill.
So it looks as if the farmer is going to be the scapegoat in Ottawa's crusade against inflation.
There is more to the editorial but I will not quote it further. Let me say in the first place that we have no more loyal group in Canada than our farmers, and that applies to farmers all across the country, in every province. Anyone who doubts that has only to look at their record of performance during the two world wars. Then if we want to find out how they have been treated all we have to do is go back to the beginning of 1946, and see how they were dealt with by the income tax department. The production necessary for the war was all finished. Old

The Address-Mr. Fair men and men unfit for military service worked many more hours than they should have worked, with no knowledge that they would be compelled to pay income tax, and no idea that they would be required to account to the income tax department. In January, 1946, however, immediately after the Christmas holidays, farmers were notified to attend at certain points and give an accounting of their business as far back as 1941. That has been a rather unhappy experience for many of the farmers on the prairies, and in one form or another that investigation is continuing. Many farmers feel they are not being trusted by the Department of National Revenue. On June 29 last the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had this to say at page 4903 of Hansard:
After all. while we are not members on the government side of the house, we are often expected to give answers to questions dealing with government administration. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that it seems that in Saskatchewan there is more activity in this regard than anywhere else in the dominion.


Mr. McCann:: One of the reasons for that is that there appears to be a little more difficulty in getting the necessary information in Saskatchewan.
In my opinion that statement questions the honesty of the farmers of that province; and since in my own province, and Manitoba, we have a similar number of investigators out through the country, exactly the same cloud is cast upon the farmers of those provinces, and I do not like it. I have made that quite clear to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue on many occasions previously, and when the budget debate is under way we hope to have something more to say about it. The administration of the Income Tax Act as far as farmers are concerned has been discussed on many occasions, but many questions still remain unanswered. We hope that during the budget debate or on the national revenue estimates the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) will answer some of our questions in connection with that administration.
An example of the treatment given the farmers was the wheat agreement between the Canadian government and the British government. If we compare the prices received under that agreement with the prices paid for class II wheat sold by the wheat board to countries other than Britain, we find that the farmers had a loss of $367 million; after they had been given a token payment of $65 million as government conscience money. During that same period of 1946 to 1949, both years inclusive, because the Canadian government decided to be generous with the farmers' money and supply wheat to Canadian millers for consumption in Canada by poor and rich

alike, the 232,000 wheat growers of the prairie provinces lost an additional $137 million.
Then the international wheat agreement came along, the first of its kind. I believe a mistake was made which should not have been made, and I mention this now so that when the agreement is renegotiated some time during the coming summer that pitfall will be avoided, which at the present time is costing the farmers approximately 55 cents a bushel. That is too much of a handout to take away from the farmers while they are suffering from other injustices. Maximum and floor prices are provided under the agreement for each of the years it covers, but the pitfall in the agreement was pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). No attention was paid to him, and as a result the farmers have lost millions of dollars. That loss is continuing. The same may be said of the policy of supplying wheat to Canadian millers for home consumption at the price fixed by the international wheat agreement. Again that is not good enough. Why should 232,000 wheat growers in the prairie provinces subsidize Canadians from one ocean to the other to the extent of 55 cents a bushel, so they may be able to eat cheap bread? In the United States they have a program of parity prices for agricultural products. For a number of years many of us on this side of the house have advocated that a similar program be put into effect here. Only last fall, however, when we were discussing the Agricultural Products Act, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) refused to have the Agricultural Prices Support Act amended by inserting a formula which would provide parity prices for the various agricultural products. We have been told by many that this country should produce more food. At Montreal, when speaking to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke along that line. I am not going to read the whole of the newspaper report in that connection, but again it is taken from the Edmonton Journal of January 23. The article reads in part as follows:
Stressing the need for increased productivity on Canadian farms, he told the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in an address prepared for delivery to its annual meeting:
"The population of the whole world is growing very fast, and apart altogether from political rivalries, I doubt if we can ever hope for the secure peace in the world which we all want so much as long as great numbers of people are barely able to eke out an existence bordering on, or in many cases below, the subsistence level."
Happily, Canada was able to look after her own needs and provide a great deal of food for export.
"But those in the world who are not so fortunate as we in this North American continent are becoming more and more aware of their poverty in relation to our plenty-

"We can improve still further our farming methods and go on increasing our productivity and thus meet our own needs and do our share to meet that world problem."
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister did not tell us anything about the prices that would be obtained for those products. Our experience has been that just as soon as there is a surplus the price of farm products drops and the farmer takes the whole rap.
In the Ottawa Journal of March 6, under the heading "Countries with abundance must share with less fortunate, says CARE director," there appears a statement made by the acting director to the cooperative union at the Chateau Laurier a few days ago. This official also points out the need for increased production.
Then we have Mr. Hannam, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, speaking to the same body and I shall read one paragraph from this speech:
There can be no peaceful living for us here until we help other countries come up to our own standards. The peoples of Asia want food, land, and human dignity.
Much more could be said, but I am reading these statements simply to point out that the officials of worth-while organizations are indicating the need for greater food production. It might be noted here that when Mr. Hannam was speaking at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture convention in Montreal he did not advocate increased production.
There is an article in the Western Producer of January 31,	1952, under the heading
"C.F.A. delegates uneasy about markets and prices for food; conclude session." It reads:
Representatives of organized farm groups in nine of Canada's ten provinces kept an uneasy eye fixed on the international trade situation throughout all of their discussions at the 16th annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Montreal last week.
Delegates were frankly uneasy at the prospect. They pointed out on more than one occasion during their public sessions that international and national leaders were urging them to produce more food for a hungry world, but nobody told them how they were going to sell it or what they might receive for it.
The best authority on agricultural subjects in Canada of whom I know is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). While the minister has been condemned in many parts of this country, I want to say here that had he had a little help in the cabinet instead of so much opposition we would have had a better and sounder program for agriculture. The minister understands the business. He understands also that unless we have a prosperous agriculture we cannot have a prosperous Canada. This is what the
The Address-Mr. Fair minister had to say in reply to some questions put to him after he had made his speech to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Montreal. The article is headed, "Gardiner's views." It reads:
Agriculture Minister Gardiner, in a hard-headed, practical approach, told delegates he was making no production suggestions. He outlined the facts as he saw them: how farmers acted on them was up to the farmers themselves. Farmers today were prosperous. The government was prepared to protect them against disastrous losses in the event of a drastic market down-turn. It was not prepared to offer incentive prices for greater production. Farmers knew what marketing prospects were and should govern themselves accordingly.
I think that is one of the greatest condemnations of any government that could be uttered. We have a great country today, but not very much is being done to take care of our surpluses. At the FAO meeting in Rome not long ago the minister is quoted as having said that Canada could increase production but doubted if she would, because no market outlet was assured. It would appear from the statement I quoted that the minister has not *changed his mind. I am not sure whether any plans are being undertaken by the government to get rid of our surplus products, but I feel that something must be done. One of the best methods of helping the farmer would be to cut the cost of production.
I should like to say a word about farm implements. Anything I may say in this connection will not bring any condemnation upon implement agents, because today, while the price of the implements is going up, at least some of the agents are working on a fixed amount as commission per unit. Anything I have to say will therefore be directed at the implement companies. A little over a year ago we were told by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) that the big fellows were all set. I believe these implement companies are included with the big fellows. I believe an investigation, a royal commission if you like, should be set up to deal with these matters. The prices for fertilizer, binder twine and many other such commodities are far too high. An investigation into one of these commodities would help bring down the prices of the others.
In 1950 the farmers of the prairie provinces had a really tough time. Their crops were snowed under without much being harvested. A similar situation obtained in 1951. I am not going to deal with that. This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave an outline of what is being done, and the quantities of grain that are still under the snow. I imagine the farmers who will harvest in the spring will be wise enough not to commence harvesting until their grain is in prime
216	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair condition. Many millions of bushels of grain that are now in the granaries or in piles on the ground will be in danger of spoiling as soon as the warm weather commences because of the moisture content of that grain. This is not a matter for the farmers alone, because labour depends upon the ability of the farmer to purchase the products of the factory. The businessman should also be interested in this problem. While the price of agricultural products has been dropping for the last few months, not all of the decrease has been passed on to the consumer. Some of it has been, but not all by any means, so that again the farmer is taking the rap, as suggested by the Rural Co-operator editorial.
There are other matters that I should like to deal with but I see that my time is fast vanishing. The cost of living index has decreased from 191-5 to 190-8 in January, and some of the things responsible for that decrease are as follows: a drop in the price of eggs, beef, pork, lard, shortening, men's woollen apparel, women's nylon hosiery, furniture, wool blankets and so forth. Practically all of these things have their origin on the farms, so that again the farmer is taking the rap. When computing percentages I am sorry that agriculture was still in the depression stage, back in 1939, and these figures have been used in making the comparison, and that was the disaster period for agriculture.
In conclusion I want to say that because of the fact that member nations of FAO, including Canada, turned down recommendations for the setting up of a world food board or commodity clearing house, Canada should take immediate steps to expand sales of food to Europe by either accepting imports in return for her exports or accepting their currency to be used for either future purchases or investments.
Canada should support international food agreements in order to assure Canadian farmers that if they expand production of food there will be a market for it, and that the price be tied to the general price level in the importing countries. At the time of the British wheat agreement we warned that the result would be that European nations would be unable to buy our goods. The government should revise administration of income tax legislation so that it will not discourage an increase in production. In order that these things may be brought about, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch):
That the following be added to the address:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:

(a)	To provide adequate inducements for the possible and essential expansion in the production of foods in Canada, and
(b)	To provide for the economic marketing and distribution of whatever part of our food production may become surplus.
If present conditions are the best our government can provide, then I suggest that Social Credit proposals be given a fair and honest trial, in the interests of all the Canadian people.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I, along with other hon. members, want to congratulate the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address, and I sincerely congratulate them on having done a first-class job.
I would like to appeal to the government at this time and ask them to hurry up the legislation dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I know a large number of old gentlemen who are suffering from the delay. While I think that the legislation should have been brought in last year-I should like to have seen it last year-I hope that the government will now hurry up and bring it in so that these elderly citizens, who served this country faithfully, will get the benefit of it.
I have another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the government. It concerns my own constituency, and in particular the Roblin park subdivision, which was set up under the Veterans Land Act. These homes have been equipped with a septic tank disposal system. A serious condition has existed there over the past five years regarding the inadequacy of the septic tank system of the various veterans homes to function during the wintertime. Representations have been made to the Veterans Land Act administration at Winnipeg at different times, complaining that this situation should be corrected. But I think the main drawback, up to the present time, has been that they have never had sufficient funds available to spend in the improvement of the system or the rectifying of it.
The situation this year has been aggravated no doubt by the light snowfall and the Californian weather that we have had in Manitoba. We hear of many septic tanks being frozen which have never been frozen before. That may be one factor in the case, but this complaint is by no means new in this district. They have had frozen septic tanks for the past five years; that is, since the subdivision was set up, and every year it is becoming worse. The land, which is a heavy gumbo soil, is not the best land to have disposal fields laid in, and the construction needs particular care to see that there

is sufficient gravel laid into the fields. I have a petition on my desk, Mr. Speaker, from 50 householders of that area who are up against this problem.
When I left Winnipeg ten days ago, 64 of the homes on that subdivision out of 90 houses had their septic tanks frozen up. The argument has been used at different times that some of the men did not take the necessary precaution of covering their fields with straw. I have interviewed men there who have complied with all the good advice handed out by the Veterans Land Act administration, and still their disposal systems have frozen.
These homes were bought by these veterans on the understanding that they would have a plumbing system that would work. I consulted with the provincial sanitary authorities, and they assured me that if these disposal fields are properly laid they will give good satisfaction up to 25 years, without being interfered with.
One thing drawn to my attention by some of these men is that some of the fields have not been properly laid; that is, each disposal field should have had so many cubic yards of gravel. Some of the men who have had to dig up and re-lay their fields have found that there was no gravel there, and in others a very little amount.
A house in this district with a proper sewerage system is worth $1,000 more than a house without one. I appeal to the department and to the government to institute an inquiry into this and lay aside sufficient money to correct this situation. If the situation is not corrected we are certainly going to run into trouble. Can you imagine 64 men pumping sewage on top of the snow every second night of the week? The week I left for Ottawa it was quite mild, but you could detect the smell. What will it be like when the snow is gone or when spring comes? Is it any wonder that the women in the settlement are having their children inoculated against typhoid? How long will the provincial government sit back and let a state of affairs like this exist? Many have left this subdivision for no reason other than that the septic sewage under these conditions for one or two winters was all they could stand. Many more would like to leave, but they have put their money into the houses, and are unable to leave them. How long the provincial sanitary authorities will allow this to go on, I do not know. However, the act governing septic systems in the province of Manitoba, as published by the queen's
The Address-Mr. Bryce printer in that province, states in section 179 (1) (a) dealing with plumbing and drainage that-
No sewage or sewage effluent shall be discharged into a creek, river, lake or watercourse except in a manner approved and by and with the written authority of the minister.
The fluid from these 64 houses is just being pumped out into the snow. This section states that-
No sewage or sewage effluent shall be discharged into (b) the subsoil within thirty-five feet of any residence; or (c) on the ground surface within one hundred feet of any residence, or (d) into the subsoil or on the ground surface.
These conditions have existed for five years. While the provincial authorities may have been reluctant to do anything about it, the condition is becoming so bad that something will have to be done. The situation has become so serious that the government can no longer ignore it. I know that improvements have been made in other settlements that have been established by having one septic disposal tank for the whole system. I have in mind the West St. Paul subdivision. It may not be too late even at this time to correct the condition I have been describing. If there was one septic disposal tank for the whole settlement it might end the whole trouble.
Instructions issued by the Veterans Land Act administration have advised at times the cultivation of the land where the fields are laid, and later instructions have suggested that grass be grown over -the fields. But results up to the present time are that those who have lived up to all these instructions have had no better results than the ones who did not. I understand that in the first winter 38 of the tanks were frozen, and that they have been freezing in even greater numbers ever since.
Hence it is evident that there is something wrong with the construction. Homes where the owners have taken up the fields and put in the necessary gravel have had better results. But the digging up of the fields and the provision of a sufficient quantity of gravel is something that entails a considerable amount of expense to the owner. I feel certain that the government which sold the homes under the Veterans Land Act should see that these systems are made to work.. I do not think any hon. member would begrudge the appropriation of a small amount of money to put this sewage disposal system into proper working order. I do not wish to repeat what I have said already, but I would add that this is one of the finest subdivisions to be seen anywhere in Canada. The landscaping and other work these men have done is a credit to them. But when one visits

The Address-Mr. Bryce them in the wintertime and sees all this sewage being pumped into the back yards, he is confronted with an entirely different picture.
These men, who saw active service, know the value of sanitation in a community. I do hope that the Veterans Land Act administration is going to step into the picture and straighten out this matter before we have an epidemic of typhoid or some other fever. These men have asked me to tell the government about this condition and to ask that it be corrected. Their request is fair and reasonable. They bought homes which included a sewage disposal system; and if that system does not work properly, then I say it is only fair and reasonable to ask that the authority who sold the houses should put in a system that will work, or reduce the prices of the homes. For the government to sit back today and say that it has no responsibility is, I say, not good enough. I feel confident the minister will do the right thing for these men. I would urge that the matter be not laid aside any longer, but that immediate steps be taken to investigate the whole problem, with a sufficient amount of money appropriated to correct the condition.
Then, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs the situation now existing at Deer Lodge hospital in my constituency. Indeed, I live only two blocks from it. Employees at Deer Lodge received benefit of the recent increase in the salaries of civil servants. However, ward maids, kitchen maids and ambulance drivers did not receive the increase in pay, because apparently they are not recognized as civil servants. These employees are in the lower income bracket, and if any needed the raise, I should think they did.
I am sure this has been an oversight by the department, and I feel confident that the minister will have this condition corrected, so that no one can accuse the officials of discrimination. This would ensure harmony among the various employees of the hospital.
I would hope also that the minister might be successful in securing permission from treasury board to place a permanent building where the annex now stands. I was in that building once or twice when I was home in January, and I can say from experience that it is so cold that the water freezes. I know the government intends to do something about it but, thus far, nothing has been done.
I should like now to turn to another problem, namely the emergency situation in Canada today brought about by the serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say it is an emergency situation, and one requiring drastic action. In my view we

should have a controller, or some other responsible federal authority, acting in conjunction with an advisory board composed of producers, consumers and processors, who would regulate the movement of cattle, and other matters connected with that industry.
Today in different provinces embargoes have been imposed. These will lead to a surplus of meat in some provinces, while in others there will be shortages. Some will be paying too much while others will be getting too little. A controller could regulate the movement of livestock in the present emergency. There is a lot of stock that will have to find its way to market in the near future. The country has to be fed. With the way things are at the present day, some provinces have too much meat while others have not enough.
Where there is a surplus of meat, the price to the producer will fall below the cost of production. Where there is a scarcity of meat, the consumer will not be able to pay the high prices that will be asked. I submit that in an emergency such as this there should be a controller who would control the price, both to the producer and to the consumer.
Under our system of free enterprise people sell for as much as they can get and buy as cheaply as possible. In an emergency such as this advantage can be taken by both sides. If a controller were appointed many hardships could be prevented. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has expressed itself on this matter, and I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of this morning as follows:
Profit Through Tragedy
It would be "unfair" to ask livestock producers to bear the full brunt of it alone, the federation said in a brief presented to the cabinet. If meat prices fell "drastically," it would mean consumers were profiting by a "tragedy" which had befallen the producers.
The federation urged that the government support the beef and lamb market at prices prevailing a week before the outbreak was announced. This would protect the cattle industry and still provide these meats to consumers at a "considerably lower" price than they paid in January or at any time in the previous half-year, the federation said.
One week before the foot-and-mouth disease broke out the cattlemen were taking approximately 10 cents per pound less than they had received a week before. That means practically $100 less per animal. The question that worries me is this: Has that drop in price been passed on to the consumer? It has not. A steer or cow will run about 1,200 pounds live weight and will dress approximately 50 per cent. If the price paid for the steer or cow was 30 cents per pound on the hoof, that would mean about 60 cents per pound on the rail. The processor would have the head,

heart, liver, intestines, blood; in fact all the offal to pay for his services. If the price for the cow or steer drops to 20 cents, the beef should be worth 40 cents and the consumer should be able to get his meat 20 cents per pound cheaper. In many cases the price to the consumer has dropped only a few cents, perhaps five cents or so. Apparently the retailer has increased his spread by 15 cents per pound.
Speaking in the house on previous occasions I have blamed the processors or packers for high prices, but when I spoke with the packers in Winnipeg I was assured that the retailer is the man to blame. I do not know whether that is the case, but I do know that when the price of cattle or hogs drops we find that that drop in price is not passed on to the consumer as it should be.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: That is not what you said last time.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not know to what the hon. gentleman refers. I am ready to back up 100 per cent anything I have said in the house. I have been thirty-two years in this business and without wanting to be boastful or proud I do submit that when I speak in the house I speak about things about which I know something.
As I say, I was told by the packers just what these retail spreads were and I was astonished. I had mentioned that these drops in price are not passed on to the consumer as they should be. The farmer has always been blamed by the consumer for the high price of meat, but that is not the case. Along with my colleague, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), I endeavoured to have an investigation made into the meat packing industry, but the combines people did not think that there was any room yet for complaint.
On a previous occasion I referred to the price of pork and I showed how the farmer was taking $18 less per hog than he had received in August, whereas the price of pork to the consumer had dropped only a few cents. Today the hog producer is facing ruin. I am glad that the Department of Agriculture has decided to make a change in the grades in order to protect the farmer.
I appreciate what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has done in the way of allowing for a heavier carcass. But that will help only the first grade, the A bacon grade; anything heavier will be no better than sows, and sows have been priced at 11 cents on the hoof these last few days.
I do not know what the producers are going to do unless they are allowed to move their animals quickly. That is one reason
7, 1952
The Address-Mr. Catherwood why I suggest that a controller should be appointed at this time. A man should have the right to move his hogs to market when they reach a weight of 250 pounds. As many hon. gentlemen know, you can put on two pounds a day and before you know it you will be selling only lard.
There should be someone in charge of this situation so that the consumer will get his meat requirements at a reasonable rate without exploitation by anyone and the producer be protected from unnecessary losses so that when the emergency is over he will be in position to continue supplying food to Canada.
I have not said anything about dairy products, but they will come into the picture if this disease spreads. It may affect the supply of milk to towns and cities or to cheese factories. Some farmers make a specialty of feeding lambs and if there is a shortage of feed, they will be hit quite hard. I have given the whole problem serious and careful consideration from both the producer and the consumer point of view. It is an emergency and should be handled by a federal authority. I know each province means well and wants to run its own business, which is their right. Therefore I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(c) To establish a federal authority to deal with meat and with dairy products during the present emergency, with power to establish floor prices for producers, to protect consumers by control of retail prices, and to arrange for the equitable distribution of such products during the said emergency.


Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George) and the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) on their speeches in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is an honour that is given to two members of the government party at each session of parliament, and I feel they have acquitted themselves very ably indeed. I should also like to extend my congratulations to the newly appointed Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). I trust he will carry out effectively the duties and responsibilities he is now assuming.
The speech from the throne gives us an opportunity to discuss matters that are near and dear to our hearts, and I feel that this time-honoured privilege of the members of the Senate and the members of the House of Commons is one that we should maintain. I took advantage of the opportunity afforded

The Address-Mr. Catherwood by the recess to read all the speeches made last session in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I read them very carefully and I can say that I found something of interest in all of them which would be beneficial to the government if put into effect. Therefore I trust this time-honoured custom will not be curtailed too indiscriminately. I realize there are many people who feel that in the debate on the speech from the throne there is a repetition of many points in the speeches. That is true but I feel such repetition is necessary in many instances in order to force the government to take action on matters that we believe are of the utmost importance to the people of Canada.
It is rather early in the debate following the speech from the throne to analyse properly the contents of the speech, but upon reviewing it, and realizing how impossible it would be to include all the legislation it is planned to bring before the house, I feel nevertheless, as my leader pointed out yesterday, that it is perhaps more notable for what it does not contain than for what it does contain. Many specific matters that we believe should have been mentioned in the speech from the throne were not dealt with. Personally I had hoped that the government would have been prepared to announce co-operation with the provinces in extending some form of aid to crippled and disabled people who are unable to earn a living for themselves. The need for this was brought forcibly to the attention of members of parliament two sessions ago. A group of these unfortunate people, representing as they did many more who were unable to come, came here and presented their case very well. We were all in sympathy with their claims and we had hoped that legislation would be brought in that would be beneficial to them.
We are very happy that the government of the province of Ontario has announced legislation to this end, and I feel they are to be commended highly. It is a great and humanitarian effort but I believe it is one that should be federal in scope and administration. While we in Ontario are particularly happy that a ray of sunshine will be brought into the lives of these people, there are still many thousands in Canada who need this assistance, and I trust the government will give consideration to co-operation with the provinces in this regard.
During the brief intermission between the closing of the fifth session and the opening of the sixth session of the house I, as I know many other members of parliament did, had an opportunity to visit many of the people in my constituency. One of the things that

warmed my heart more than anything else was to go into a number of homes where they were receiving the old age pension for the first time and to see the happiness that has come to these people. One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker. Communism will never rear its ugly head in these homes where the pension is coming in regularly. I was most happy to feel that the Progressive Conservative party had played a very important part in making that legislation possible.
I do say, however, and I emphasize this very strongly, that there is a limit to the amount of taxation which the people of the country can bear. I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he pointed out yesterday that the limit had been reached but I also say it has been passed. The government must realize more seriously than ever before how dangerously we are riding the crest of an inflationary spiral. The time has come when we in this parliament, and the government particularly, have got to consider retrenchment because the days of buoyant revenue will not be with us to the extent they have been during the past year.
I also feel that the surplus we built up during the past year has not been in the best interests of the people of Canada. Perhaps that does not coincide with the views of many members of the house, but this huge amount of money that has been built up by the government has created hardship among many people throughout the land. We know of many industries which at the present time are having difficulty in carrying on owing to the burden of heavy taxation. I should like to refer to an article in the Financial Post of March 1, 1952, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. It reads as follows:
Bell needed additional net earnings of approximately $6,500,000 to meet obligations to shareholders . . . That would mean a modest boost in current rates . . .
The article goes on to point out, however, that they have to collect $14,400,000 to cover the extra taxes on the higher earnings. That is only one company of many in this country that are in a similar position. In reading the financial reports of many other companies we see that a similar situation exists, and therefore we must realize that the limit of taxation has been reached.
I am sure all members of parliament are concerned about having good, sound legislation, and I believe most members will support legislation of this kind when it is brought before this house. So I think at this time the government must measure its expenditures more carefully than ever before. We

must realize that the defence expenditures to which we have committed ourselves must be made; and in that connection we were happy to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announce that a committee will be set up to scrutinize those expenditures. I believe the committees of this house have a very important job to do. On them much depends and if the government will co-operate with those committees and make available all necessary information, we will have better legislation and get better value for our dollars. As a result we may be able to reduce some of the burdensome taxes that have been imposed.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) outlined the position of the textile industry in this country. I highly commend him on his effort, which I believe should be supported by all those who recognize the importance of this great industry to Canada. For the past twenty years, as he pointed out, one worker in twelve in this country has been closely associated directly or indirectly with that industry. This has been a great stabilizing influence in our economy, and we realize how important it is that we keep the textile industry prosperous. Harold Smith, who was president of the textile association, said in 1950 that the market continues to shrink, and as long as that goes on it will be necessary to have reasonable protection for this industry. His opinion was shared by the minister of trade and commerce of Australia, who pointed out that we must protect our textile industry from dumping and also from excessive imports. Our own Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking to the textile industry some time ago, pointed out how important it was to the people of Canada to keep that industry flourishing, and I am very glad he has recognized that fact.
We have a peculiar situation in this country. The demand for textile products is at an all-time high, yet the industry has never been more depressed than it is today. Other countries are also concerned about the importation of cheap textiles. Speaking in the House of Lords not long ago Lord Barnby came out very strongly against the importation of Japanese textiles to such an extent that the whole industry was depressed. He also made reference to the position of Canada, pointing out the serious unemployment that has developed in that industry here. South Africa faces the same situation, and the board of trade has spoken very strongly about the importation of textiles into that country. This matter is of great concern and, as the hon. member for Lanark pointed out this afternoon, serious consideration should be
The Address-Mr. Catherwood given to all aspects of the textile trade. I hope the Minister of National Revenue will give it his attention, so that we may maintain one of the oldest and best established industries, which has been a mainstay of the economic life of many of our towns and villages. I know of many cases where a textile mill is the only industry in a town or village. So we must not allow things to get worse and the industry to become completely demoralized. The textile industry is operated as efficiently as any other industry in Canada, I am sure, and it only asks for sufficient protection to give it a fair share of the home market.
Now, sir, I would like to turn very briefly to agriculture. This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) referred to the tobacco industry of Canada. He also mentioned something that is important to this house, when he discussed the letter which he read to us referring to the action of a certain tobacco company. I am sure none of us would support actions of that kind; but I do feel that the tobacco producers should be given some consideration. A delegation from the flue-cured tobacco marketing association met the minister in January of this year. That was the second time they brought their problems to him, pointing out how necessary it was to drastically reduce taxes, particularly on cigarettes. They asked that taxes be reduced to the point that a package of twenty cigarettes would sell for 30 cents, which would still be 50 per cent higher than in the United States. The minister listened carefully to the delegation, but gave no indication that he would favourably consider their request. I do trust that in the interests of justice, of sound reasoning, of our national economy and of a great segment of our agricultural population the minister will consider reducing this most burdensome, unpalatable, depressing and intolerable tax in line with the request of the association.
This taxation has caused a new industry to spring up along our border, what we might call the smuggling corporation of America. This is a very serious business, and sometimes I think many hon. members do not realize to what extent these tobacco products are brought in illegally. This industry is operating, but is contributing nothing to our national revenue. Nor is it contributing anything to the morale of our people. It is making many of our citizens parties to illegal acts, in that they are purchasing these smuggled cigarettes. I am afraid that business will continue to flourish as long as we continue this excessive taxation. I am sure the minister himself must be anxious to clean up this situation. We know the smugglers are very
222	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Catherwood happy today, and I think it is up to this government and this parliament to see that they are made most unhappy.
During the last few days we have had a searching debate on the most dangerous disease ever to threaten the livestock industry of Canada. The gravity of the situation is such that great anxiety has been created in the minds of our people. The loss of the great American market will affect directly or indirectly all fourteen million people of this country. A major catastrophe such as this cannot help but have far-reaching consequences to the economic life of our people. This emphasizes what can happen when we build up trade with one country and neglect our trade with other nations. The great agricultural industry of Canada was built on the export trade; and the action of the United States in prohibiting the importation of cattle, hogs and dairy products, for which we cannot blame them, should forcibly recall to this government the many speeches made by members of the opposition parties in this house on so many occasions on the need to seek other avenues of trade. I feel that the government should recognize this fact and give it close attention.
This afternoon the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) pointed out that we do need this trade, and that we should avoid placing a dependence on trading principally with one country. Hon. members will recall that on February 28, 1950, the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved that:
. . . this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth and the countries of the empire to devise policies to restore our lost markets, and thereby to provide jobs for our Canadian people.
Following the debate upon that resolution, the question was put to a vote and it was defeated by the solid vote of the government against the vote of the combined opposition parties. At that time we thought it was most unfortunate that this motion was rejected, as it closed the door more tightly against the possibility of increasing our trading relations with the empire nations. However, I do not believe we should dwell on the past mistakes of the government, but I do believe the government should benefit by those errors in judgment and be prepared to amend their ways.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated this week that every effort would be made to locate new markets for our meat and dairy products. I suggest to him that he sincerely investigate the possibilities suggested by the member for Lake Centre. Although that resolution was moved two


years ago, the proposition is just as sound today as it was then. One thing is certain; no harm can come from such a conference, and good could result. We have lost our market south of the border, and it may be lost for some period of time. It may be that we shall never regain that market to the extent we had it this past year. I trust that the minister, who had remarkable success in persuading his colleagues to accept his advice and judgment in the past, will use his influence toward this end. Canada is a nation whose very existence depends upon export trade.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: It is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but I do not like to waste time. We may be told that we need another session to complete our business, so I shall not put myself in the category of those who waste time. Perhaps I could carry on until six o'clock. I noticed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) applauding. I would not do that if I were he, because I may talk about that St. Lawrence seaway and raise that trouble again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or the Canso bridge.


Clarence Gillis: The bridge is set. We have even decided on the name of it.
I want to take advantage of this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to compliment the mover, (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They made excellent speeches upon a very weak document. I was particularly interested in the speech by the member for Westmorland (Mr. George). He is a maritime member, and he did a good job with a bad case. I was interested in his reference to the seaway project. I am glad that, as a maritime member, he is still thinking about it to the extent that he included it in his speech. I trust that the Minister of Transport and the seaway authority that is set up to handle the project will accept the member's advice. He suggested that that authority should carefully investigate all the economic possibilities that could be related to that project, if and when it gets under way. Now, that is practically what I suggested during the debate on that subject last session.
I am glad to see that I influenced at least one member on that side of the house who had sufficient prestige to be entrusted with the job of moving the address.
I should like to compliment the member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) on his statement this afternoon. If hon. members listened to his speech and the last one, they will have come to the realization that so far as the textile industry, the agricultural industry and other

industries in this country are concerned, there is no solution to their problems within this country. The problem is international. I thought that we had solved the problem when Mr. Churchill and the late Mr. Roosevelt made their famous declaration in the Atlantic charter. At that time they set out a five-point charter which suggested that when this war was over it would be necessary to recognize the fact that we were living in one world and were interdependent. When the war was finished we were to sit around a conference table and open our borders to a free exchange of raw material, with some regulatory body deciding to divide up the economic resources of the world on the basis of need. This has not happened. Apparently, that was only a document to take us on another step into the war. When the war was over, this document became a declaration of principles without any legal effect. No one has done anything about it. As a result, the member for Lanark's case was one hundred per cent correct.
The hon. member showed the extent to which our people depend on that industry. He showed what the picture is in other countries, the international competition and the difference in wage rates in the different countries. There is no possibility of reconciling that difficulty within this country, within Britain or any one country. The same situation applies to our agricultural products. We can run around in circles setting up tariff barriers, but the problem is world wide. I do not think we have followed to the extent we should the purpose for which the United Nations organization was set up. There is no solution within any one country, and unless the problem is tackled on that basis I do not think there is very much we can do about it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Gillis: When the house took recess at six o'clock, I was starting to make a few remarks on the throne speech. At the last session, when I made my contribution in a similar debate, I said that the throne speech at that time could very well have been an election document. It contained something for practically every section of the country. I am sure that most hon. members who did not want to see an election this year will, on reading the throne speech before us, come to the conclusion that it offsets completely in that respect the last document of this kind
The Address-Mr. Gillis we discussed. I would say definitely that this throne speech gives me the assurance at least that we are not to fight an election this year.


Mr. Byrne:: You could be just as wrong as you were the first time.


Clarence Gillis: No. Perhaps there were things that happened after the last throne speech was introduced that caused the government to change its mind. Well, that is permissible. If I were in the Prime Minister's place perhaps I would be doing the same thing. I am not criticizing that; I am merely giving my own impressions.
In my opinion this is a document that aims at tidying up a lot of legislation. There is one omission from it that I am rather sorry to see, but it is the one that convinces me that we are not going to have to face an election this year. It is the fact that the government not only has no reference in the speech to a national health program, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has assured us also that it is not the intention of the government to set up a committee to study the matter. I believe that that is the most important issue in the country today.
I said that it looked like a tidying-up process. Perhaps that is good strategy at this time. Perhaps it is good strategy to pause and take a look at the field of social security and ascertain how much further we can go in that field. I believe that in this country today a national health program is an essential. I am rather disappointed that the government is not at least setting up a committee further to study the matter and relate it to the social security program that we have at the present time. It would give hon. members an opportunity to determine what the need was, how well equipped the provinces are to handle it, and what the total cost would be in that regard in tying in that essential national health program with the social security measures that we have at the present time. I think that is the next step in the field of social security. But, as I said before, in my opinion this will likely be saved as an issue in the next election campaign.
I am convinced that we have to take a look at this whole social security program, because it seems that in curing one problem here and there we always raise another one. Most of us assumed, when the bill went through the house abolishing the means test at the age of 70 and dropping the age limit down to 65, that we had for the time being at least solved that problem of old age security. We have not solved it, not even in the age 70 group, because we have created

The Address-Mr. Gillis new problems by running into other legislation. When we say that we have removed the means test at the age of 70 it is not quite true. If you are a millionaire you can make application at the age of 70 and your income is not taken into consideration. That is not true when the incomes of others who are on other pensions are affected. For example, people who draw the blind pension as of right and who make application for the old age pension at age 70 are advised by the provinces-at least by the province of Nova Scotia-that they are transferring them from the blind pension roll to the roll of old age security. The blind pension which they were receiving they were entitled to because they were blind. They were entitled to it as of right. They are also entitled to the old age security pension at age 70 as of right, but we inject the means test again by considering the income received from the blind pension board. They are removed from that and are put on the old age security roll. In my opinion by doing that you are reintroducing the means test for that person who is afflicted and has that small income of $40 per month because of that affliction. I myself think that we have to take a look at that and ascertain if we have not overlooked that particular application of the means test to a person whose income is very small, and who is badly afflicted.
Another place where we run into it is in regard to the war veterans allowance. The War Veterans Allowance Act still contains a means test. After the recipient of a war veterans allowance, who may have been receiving it for years as his only source of income, reaches 70 and applies for the old age security, he is immediately notified that his income from the war veterans allowance is affected. That is not only retaining the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act, but it is applying the means test on the basis of income under the Old Age Security Act, and it is a misnomer to say that we have removed the means test completely at age 70. While the millionaire's income is not affected, the smaller pensioner, the blind pensioner and the war veterans allowance pensioner are affected because they have $40 a month income from another source.
Another section of the Pension Act is affected. The disability pensioner is not affected. But take as an example a widow in indigent circumstances who had a son killed overseas. Suppose she has been granted a compassionate pension of $60 a month because of the loss of a son who would now be her support had he come back. As soon as she reaches the age of 70 and makes application for old age security she is immediately
[Mr. Gillis.I

notified by the pension board that her income is affected and will be reduced by $40 a month. There are these three particular classes. In my opinion they are classes that are the hardest hit of any section of our society because they are all receiving that little bit of income of $40 a month owing to their affliction. I refer to the blind pensioner, the war veterans pensioner who is broken down and in adverse circumstances, and the widow who is in indigent circumstances and was receiving a compassionate allowance. Someone should take a look at these three classes. Not much money is involved, but a very important principle is involved as applied to the removal of the means test from the Old Age Security Act.
I hope someone in authority, perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he is preparing his budget, might take a look at that, and see if we cannot clean out those sore spots, and really give us an old age pension at the age of 70, without any reference to income.
Then, the age of 65 is another spot where I believe we are going to have a good deal of difficulty. It is necessary for the provincial governments to pass the enabling legislation. As yet, some of those provincial governments have not passed legislation, with the result that there are thousands of people across this country who are greatly confused. I may be a person of 65 years, or 68 years, with proof of birth. I have made application. And perhaps I should point out that I am talking only about some unnamed person who has made application.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You do not look that old.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had us worried.


Clarence Gillis: Many of them come to visit me, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has had similar visits. If I am such a person, we will assume that I have made my application. The law has been passed by the federal government. But these people who visit us do not understand that the provincial governments have not passed the necessary enabling legislation. The result is that they are badly confused as to when they will receive the pension. They think someone is gypping them.
As for the provinces paying the additional money, I can only say that it is difficult to see how some of the provinces in Canada can afford to pay it. When we take a look at provincial incomes across this country we see that provinces like Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and, with a struggle, perhaps

one or two others, could pass such legislation with the assurance that they have the necessary revenue to foot the bill. But there are others who cannot do that.
The people in this age group, as between province and province, are entitled to equality of treatment. If a provincial government is not able to meet the bill, and cannot raise the necessary revenue, then I think it becomes the obligation of the federal parliament to consider what might be done in providing equality in that field. If help is necessary, then I think the matter should be taken into consideration.
That is another angle of the social security program that should be considered. I believe it might be considered appropriately at the time of the revision of the dominion-provincial taxing agreements which, I believe, expire at the end of this month. It can be readily understood that you cannot have equality in any of these services as between province and province when, in one province, there is a provincial income of only $15 million or $20 million while in another there is an income of over a billion dollars.
The provincial government with the smaller income cannot treat its citizens as they should be treated. I have never taken the position that I wanted to cling to the sovereignty of a province, and that I am entitled always to what was written into the constitution seventy years ago under the conditions then existing. I do not think we should cling to any principle of neglecting the poor in any province because of some theoretical nonsense of provincial rights. What I want is equality as between citizen and citizen in the Dominion of Canada. And if it is necessary to amend the constitution in order to preserve the interests of the people in any province, then I am prepared to amend the constitution without any regard for the feelings of any person in any province who thinks he has to retain the sovereignty of that province, as he sees fit. I am prepared to see the constitution changed. I believe that in order to have equality as between province and province it will be necessary to amend the constitution.
I should like now to say a few words about this very important amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk. This is a serious matter, and one we should think about for a few moments. He has said that this matter of the marketing of our cattle is a national emergency. I agree with him that it is. Not only is it national; it is an international emergency.
Most of our beef is produced in western Canada, where the disease has broken out. Immediately upon its breaking out, the United 55704-15
The Address-Mr. Gillis States, one of our export markets, declares an embargo against Canadian cattle. Then, as between province and province in Canada other embargoes are set up. This means that 80 per cent of the cattle industry which supplies beef to Canada and for export to the United States is tied up in two provinces.
As the amendment suggests, this means there will be a great surplus in that section, and that in those provinces prices -can fall away below production costs. It means also that because of a shortage in the other provinces that, to a large extent, were supplied from that source, prices can skyrocket.
I do not think we have any national machinery today that could handle the problem. First of all, in my opinion the people of this country received a scare in the last couple of weeks. Very little is known by the public about the disease, with the result that the average person will be reluctant to accept beef until he has been assured that the beef has been properly scrutinized. Or, if there is a lifting of the embargo as between province and province, the people will want to know that the cattle have been properly inspected, and that competent authorities have declared it free from the disease, free from contamination and fit for human consumption.
I do not think there is in existence any machinery that could give that assurance. The machinery being used at the present time is that which allowed this -condition to develop, and which permitted delay between the time of diagnosis -and the time when efforts were made to stop the spread of the disease. The hon. member for Selkirk h-as quite properly suggested the setting -up of a board- of competent people in the industry, headed by a controller with the right to supervise the industry's rehabilitation-because we know it has to be rehabilitated.
I have said this is an international question-and- it is, in more respects than one. Not -only is it international because the Americans have declared an embargo against our cattle, but it is international because the -disease itself is international. A couple of nights ago I listened to a broadcast from an authority from France. He characterized the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as a world cataclysm. He pointed out that Great Britain has had- a large number of outbreaks since 1945, and that in that country it has not yet been eliminated. It has been isolated to certain sections. Then, he pointed out that France was polluted with it, that the whole of Europe was suffering from it, that they had it in the Argentine and in Mexico, -and that it was just beginning to appear in the Dominion of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
In view of the fact that they have been struggling against it for years in the countries I have mentioned-, and have not yet brought it under control, I believe we should take immediate steps to select the most competent people in the country and give them the authority to do a scientific job of regulation, so that the difficulty may be brought under control as soon as possible.
I believe that action of that kind- by the government at this time would give the people of Canada an assurance that these embargoes are not likely to continue, that infected cattle will not be permitted' to contaminate other animals, and that the meat available is fit for human consumption. In view of the fact that it has not been stamped1 out or brought under control by the other countries I have mentioned1, I believe the government of this country should take the steps recommended in the amendment for the purpose of developing machinery charged- specifically with the responsibility of handling this problem.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) made a good argument in connection with prices and stated that he had changed his opinion that the packers were entirely responsible for the high cost of meat. I think it shows considerable intellectual development when a man indicates he has changed his opinion. A wise man changes his mind once in a while but the fool goes on forever. The hon. member has indicated that he is a wise man. He consulted with the packers and got the facts. He ascertained that a great deal of the price fixing and the cost of high prices was to be found in the retail end.
My wife does all our shopping so I do not keep track of meat prices very much, but I do know that in some sections of the country retailers form associations and fix prices. Not only do they fix prices, they advertise them. I have in my hand an advertisement which appeared some time ago in the North Shore Leader of Newcastle, New Brunswick. This is an advertisement by the Newcastle Meat and Grocers Association and it indicates just who is responsible for these prices. The advertisement reads:
Owing to recent advances in beef costs it has been found! necessary to revise retail prices.
The following prices are based on today's costs and become effective Saturday, April 21, 1951.
It goes on to indicate the price of round steak at 95 cents per pound; rump roast, 75 cents per pound; sirloin steak and roasts, $1.10; and T-bone steak, $1.10. The prices are given right along the line. This simply bears out what the hon. member for Selkirk

was saying this afternoon, that the middleman was taking a larger share of the markup. This definitely confirms, not only that they form associations for this purpose but boldly advertise in the press that in that area the price of meat is going to be such until further ordered by that association. I am not so sure but that that is not a contravention of the Combines Investigation Act. I am not suggesting that anyone should be prosecuted because this is in a small section of Canada, but it definitely shows that price fixing does take place in that particular end of the trade. It bears out what the hon. member for Selkirk had to say this afternoon.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has a lot to do with wheat, wheat boards, marketing and so forth. I urge him to prevail upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has the direct responsibility in this matter, to take a look at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Selkirk. The hon. member is in that business himself and he understands the problems. The federal government has a right in an emergency to set up a board of competent people with a controller who would have the authority, after consultation with the board, to break these embargoes which have been set up. He would have authority to move cattle from areas in western Canada where there is no contamination, where it can be guaranteed that they will not contaminate any other part of the country, and so get the channels of trade opened up as quickly as possible to prevent prices rising where there are shortages or dropping where there are surpluses. Such action would be a reassurance to the people of Canada that the government is dealing with this matter in a competent manner.
I should like to say a word to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prud-ham). I was rather disappointed a month or so ago to read in the press that the one labour representative on the dominion coal board has been displaced. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose competent supervision this board was set up, will agree with what I am about to say. It was on the advice of labour that this board was set up. Many years ago there was so much wrangling, trouble, strife and unregulated financing in the coal mining industry that a royal commission was appointed. The gentleman who headed that royal commission was the hon. member for Invemess-Richmond (Mr. Carroll).

The commission made a survey of the industry from coast to coast, met with officials of the unions and representatives of the coal operators and with other interested people. Although I understand it was a minority report, the commission did recommend to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who at that time had supervision over subventions, that a coal board should be set up for the purpose of handling subventions, gathering together certain technical personnel, mining engineers and so forth, and assisting the industry generally. That coal board was set up and it has done a fairly good job. I was critical when the six-man board was set up because four of the members were coal operators. The chairman represented the government, and labour's one representative on the board was the late D. W. Morrison, who passed away a short time ago.
Mr. Morrison was an official of the miners' union in Nova Scotia and had been for many years. Unfortunately he was ill at the time of his appointment. When he passed away a vacancy was created. I have always felt that the men who dug the coal had as much right to representation on that board as the coal operators.


Gordon Graydon: You would do a good job yourself.


Clarence Gillis: They would never give it to me because I know too much about it. I criticized the board because I felt that there should be equal representation. No one knows more about coal mining than the fellow who goes down under the ground to dig it. I was in hopes that the vacancy created when Mr. Morrison passed away would be filled by someone who represented the men who dig the coal. I was very disappointed to read in the press a statement by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys that another coal operator had been appointed to fill this position.
I think that appointment showed very poor judgment. The man who was appointed was a small coal operator. He is a good personal friend of mine. But I do resent the action of the government in appointing another coal operator to a board where the coal operators already had 90 per cent of the representation. That action was a mistake which has been resented by the coal miners of Nova Scotia.
Immediately that appointment was made resolutions were sent to me, and I am sure they were sent to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, protesting against the appointment. I would not have anything to say about this if I were not sure that there 55704-15i
The Address-Mr. Gillis are many competent people connected with the coal miners' union who know the problems of the industry and who could be depended upon to do the reasonable thing. There were men of that type eligible to fill that vacancy. I think it is a mistake that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) should remedy as soon as he possibly can, because we were building up a certain amount of confidence and harmony in the field of industrial relations in that province and that kind of action throws the situation right back to 1913. It is as if the government had ignored completely the fact that there was anyone else in the country except the coal operators and the boss, and had adopted the view that the other fellow did not have brains enough to take his problem to any government appointed board. I trust that mistake will be remedied. I say again you will have a better board if you select the members on a fifty-fifty basis with an independent chairman such as Mr. Uren representing the government. I believe you would get more action and would get a more realistic presentation of the problem.
There are a lot of things wrong with the mechanization program in which the government has invested $7,500,000. It is not working out as it should. The coal operators will never tell you that but the man who operates the machinery and knows the technical difficulties can tell you and that is the type of man who should be sitting on that board. We are not concerned about looking at the balance sheets of the coal operators and that kind of thing but we are concerned about making it a better job, producing more coal and getting more value for the money the country has invested in the industry. You will find that is the attitude of the average man in the ranks of labour. They are not looking for money for themselves. They are concerned about the industry, its future and the investment they have made in schools, churches and so forth. I hope the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will read what I have said and attempt to remedy that mistake as soon as he possibly can.
I am excusing him for the reason that he is one of the newer members of the house, and the industry is new to him. He is a new minister with a large department, and overnight it is not very easy for him to put his finger on all the little technicalities that exist in the department. But now that he knows, and I am delivering this message to him from the mine workers of Nova Scotia, I trust he will correct the mistake, find another place for Mr. Hartigan and see that a representative of the miners' union is placed on that board.

The Address-Mr. Gillis
I do not want to go beyond my time but I should like to say a few words on the question of federal aid to education, and I have good reason for doing so. Only recently there was the unfortunate occurrence of school teachers going on strike for the first time in the history of this country, and that took place in the rural sections of Cape Breton. I am sure that any member who has followed that situation for any length of time would agree with me that the action they were forced to take was completely justifiable. They were patient and long suffering. As long as I can remember we have been arguing in this house, and there have also been discussions in the provinces, about the inadequacy of teachers' salaries, the difficulty of getting competent teachers to enter the profession and the large numbers who leave the profession. As has been pointed out here on a good many occasions, the teacher is the greatest architect in our society because he is building the citizens of the future to whom we are going to hand over the reins of government and depend upon to improve and carry forward the things we are trying to do today.
It is much more important than building houses. You will demand a qualified man to plan your house and build it but we have gone on for years and allowed that kind of thing to develop in the most important phase of our society. Those who are moulding our future citizens are working for very low wages. I am not going to elaborate but I want to make the point that there is no other solution for the problem of teachers' salaries than federal aid to education. When any premier in this country wants his teachers to work for a thousand dollars a year because of constitutional difficulties, then there is something wrong with him, and we should get together and iron out the matter by amending the constitution of the country.


Mr. Harkness:: Better get rid of the
premiers.


Clarence Gillis: That is up to the people of the provinces. Under our educational system in the last fifty years people have not been encouraged to go beyond the eighth grade so that they would not be smart enough to threaten them and get rid of them. Perhaps that has been part of the design.


An hon. Member:: Watch out now.


Clarence Gillis: I want to keep to the main subject because I have not much time. Federal aid is the answer. I am not criticizing the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. They have been using

the revenue they have in the best way they can in an effort to spread it over the whole field.


Mr. Brooks:: There is a question about that.


Clarence Gillis: I am quite convinced of that as far as Nova Scotia is concerned. I have studied their figures. I have no right to offer any apologies for the premier of that province or anyone else but I at least try to be fair when I have occasion to speak on any subject.
I know that in the field of education Nova Scotia has gone pretty near the limit of her finances. Nova Scotia is paying more per capita and per pupil for education today out of what revenue she has than any other province in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


An hon. Member:: Let him finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has unanimous consent he may proceed.


Mr. Blackmore:: Go ahead.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to finish this subject although I do not like to transgress on the time of the house.


George Harris Hees: It is a pleasure to hear you.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you very much.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You are among friends.


Clarence Gillis: I am concerned about the matter of federal aid to education. If I had time I could give the figures for each province showing the differences in provincial income and the amount paid by each province for education, but I will stick to the province of Nova Scotia because that is where the strike occurred, in the rural districts of Cape Breton. It nearly spread to the whole province. School teachers are pretty responsible people, and any time such a section of the community stops working and holds out until they get some kind of adjustment there is something radically wrong. They have been patient and long suffering because they have presented their case on a good many occasions.
I think it is a matter of federal aid. I do not think Nova Scotia can raise the necessary revenue in order to pay the salaries that the teachers are entitled to receive. The municipalities definitely cannot. In the very region where the strike took place the property assessment is as high as 12 per cent in some sections. You cannot go any further than that. There will be a dominion-provincial conference on the taxation agreements and I believe the federal government should consider the matter in conjunction with the provincial governments affected which have not the necessary income to maintain their

social services and educational standards on the same level as the central provinces. I believe that either the agreements should be revised or direct federal aid for educational purposes should be granted. Definitely something must be done.


An hon. Member:: Let them raise the taxes. That is all.


Clarence Gillis: I just told you a moment ago they have raised them as high as they can. They cannot go any further.


John Horne Blackmore: Talk about something you know something about.


An hon. Member:: He knows more than you think.


Clarence Gillis: When the tax agreements are being considered I believe that something definitely should be done to bring about some measure of equality. I should like to say something for the benefit of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. Perhaps the reason the outlying provinces are not able to provide more revenue from taxes is that most of their revenue is siphoned off into the central provinces. For example, most of the wealth from the mining industry of Nova Scotia goes to beautify Mount Royal in Montreal. Large salaries are paid to people living in Montreal from that steel and coal industry, and corporation taxes are paid there. If we had that revenue in Nova Scotia, together with the succession duties and equality in freight rates, if we kept our own wealth and taxed it in that province, I might not have to come to this house and say what I am saying at the present time. That is equally true of Ontario. Large estates are built up in the central provinces by industrialists and others who live in this part of the country. The succession duties are paid here, but that money is earned in some other part of the country.
I do not want to go further with that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for the courtesy of the extra five minute's. I wanted to make these few points because I consider them important, and I hope the departments concerned will take them under advisement at the appropriate time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the government to the very serious situation which increasing unemployment is causing right across this country today. Many towns and cities are faced with the same problem that is facing my own city of Toronto, so I am going to use the situation that exists there as an example of what is happening in many other centres in Canada.
In Toronto, on February 21, there were 32,000 unemployed persons registered with
The Address-Mr. Hees the national employment service. This compares with 13,500 registered one year ago. I believe an increase of 140 per cent during the past twelve months shows that the local and national unemployment problem is becoming increasingly serious, and can no longer be ignored by this government.
Of the 32,000 unemployed persons registered in Toronto on February 21, some 80 per cent were eligible for unemployment insurance. Unfortunately, many of those people suffered extreme hardship for one or more of the following reasons:
First, a delay, often amounting to several weeks, between the date of application and payment of the first insurance benefits;
Second, the inadequacy of the benefits to provide for those with large families;
Third, the limited period for which benefits are paid. When benefits stop there is no other means of support.
So far I have been dealing with the 80 per cent who were eligible for unemployment insurance. The remaining 20 per cent, who were employable but who were not under the unemployment insurance scheme, had no means of support whatsoever. These people were in a most desperate plight.
Those who were not covered by the unemployment insurance scheme, or who were inadequately covered by it, have been fed and sheltered by the city, the Salvation Army, the Scott Mission and other charitable institutions. In most cases this has alleviated actual hardship and suffering, but in no way can it be considered a permanent solution. What these unemployed people want are jobs to work at, so they can provide for their families, and retain their self-respect. If it is impossible to find jobs, they want adequate unemployment insurance to tide them over until jobs can be found.
We may well ask ourselves why unemployment is growing at such an alarming rate, at a time when we should be enjoying peak prosperity and employment. It is due solely to the plundering and blundering of this government. They have plundered the people by overtaxing them to such an extent that they can no longer afford to buy the goods and services they would otherwise be buying. This has reduced production, and thereby reduced employment. They have blundered by imposing credit restrictions, designed to stop the purchase of civilian goods in order to make way for defence production, and then have not placed defence orders to take up the slack. The natural result has been unemployment.

The Address-Mr. Quelch
The logical answer is for the government to correct the mistakes it has made, and thereby restore production and employment to a normal level. However, this government will never admit or correct a mistake, so we must prepare for increasing unemployment as a result of these policies. Naturally, the coming of spring will ease the unemployment situation to quite an extent, but we can expect the present picture to reappear by next November, and perhaps a lot sooner.
If we are to avoid the experiences of the past few months, the time to do our planning is now.' These plans, I believe, should take the following form.
First, the unemployment insurance scheme should be extended to include a larger proportion of those not yet covered.
Second, unemployment insurance payments should be increased to compensate for the rise in the cost of living.
Third, the period between the date of application and the date of the first payment should be kept to a maximum of five days.
Fourth, when eligibility has been established, cash payments should be made immediately if it can be shown that an emergency exists within the family.
Fifth, until a permanent plan has been worked out between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, the federal government should assist the municipalities in paying the relief costs which have been made necessary by the inadequacy of the present unemployment insurance plan.
I believe it is about time this government tackled the unemployment problem in a realistic way, instead of simply pretending that it does not exist.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne stresses the need to increase the combined strength of the nations of the free world in order to achieve a lasting peace by discouraging acts of aggression. However, it has been pointed out time and again by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and many others that we cannot hope to defeat communism by force of arms alone, but that we must take energetic action to increase the economic well-being of many groups of people throughout the world. However, in supporting that idea I would not say for one moment that poverty is the only cause of war. I believe there are many other causes, such as ideologies and the lust for power. But on the other hand, I am satisfied that we can never hope to achieve a lasting peace as long as we have
IMr. Hees.]
large scale starvation in any part of the world. When you have that condition, you have fertile ground for the spread of communism.
Unfortunately, up to the moment little progress has been made in solving that problem. I realize that we have the special agencies of United Nations Organization, FAO, technical assistance, the Colombo plan; we have had UNRRA and the Marshall plan; I think we would all admit that what has been accomplished by those agencies merely represents a drop in the bucket as compared with the tremendous problem that faces us. No doubt the increased tempo of defence will still further aggravate that problem, especially of course in Europe. To the extent that it does it may be said we are helping the nations behind the iron curtain, because they will be accomplishing their purpose if they can create increased discontent throughout the world. In that way, they hope to win support.
Today, over six years after the end of world war II, the problem of expanding the supply of food is one of primary importance. It is in that regard that I say we have made little progress. For instance, at the FAO conference held in Rome last November, the need for greater production of food was stressed time and again. I was interested in a statement that appears in the February issue of "External Affairs" on page 56, under the heading of "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations," and I should like to quote the first paragraph:
Within the last century an acute new problem has developed in mankind's age-old struggle for subsistence. Progressive application of scientific knowledge to the problems of providing for material human needs, together with the rapid spread of social reform, has resulted in a state of affairs in which the rate of increase of the world's population has outstripped that at which food can be produced. The last fifteen years have witnessed a twelve per cent growth in the population of the globe, but no more than a nine per cent increase in its production of food. The present population rise of one per cent per annum, when translated into figures representing human beings, reveals the startling fact that there are between fifty-five thousand and sixty thousand new mouths to be fed every day.
Then on the following page it states:
As a result of rapid increases in the population of the world, present per capita supplies of food are below the unsatisfactory prewar levels.
I think that statement, in itself, justifies my saying that we have made little progress. As a matter of fact, it may be argued that we have lost ground because today the per capita supply of food is less than it was prior to world war II.

One may well ask, what is Canada's answer to that challenge. Our delegate, the Minister of Agriculture, when addressing the FAO conference stated that there had been a falling off in the production of milk, pork and beef in Canada since the end of world war II. Furthermore, he stated that he was afraid there would be no increase in the production of meat unless some assurance could be given to the farmers that a market would be found for that increased production. I do not want to be charged with misrepresenting what he said, so I am going to quote his words. I am quoting from a speech he made to commission I, food and agriculture organization conference, at Rome, Italy, Friday, November 23, 1951. On page 2,
I read:
In short, we are producing about seven per cent more milk than before the war and about seven per cent less than during the war.
About pork, he said:
Canada has produced during the last five years fifty per cent more pork than for the last five years before the war. But she is producing thirty per cent less than she did produce for five years during the war.
In regard to beef, he said:
Canada is producing about one million head more beef cattle than before the war, and about one million head less than during the war.
Then, the minister went on to point out that that was not a very happy picture to present to the conference, but he said the condition in regard to cereals was better. He had this to say:
Our barley supplies are better than ever before, and our oat supplies above the long time average. These, together with our feed wheat position, make it possible to produce more meat and dairy products.
I should point out our surplus production of cereals and meat comes from western Canada. The soil there is of high fertility with the result that the securing of fertilizer is not a problem.
I am afraid this increased production of meat and dairy products will not materialize unless fears are removed from the minds of our farmers. The meat and dairy farmer has no assurance he could dispose of his surplus if it were produced. His experience suggests to him that there is no outlet.
That picture, Mr. Speaker, could hardly be called an encouraging one so far as the farmers are concerned.
When the Prime Minister spoke before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Montreal in January, he also stressed the need for expansion in the production of food. He admitted, on the other hand, that there were serious problems in regard to distribution, but he argued that an increase was necessary in order to promote peace and happiness in the world. However, I thought the important point was that he did not give one word of assurance to the farmers of
The Address-Mr. Quelch Canada that if they did increase the production of food there would be a market for it. I am going to quote the words that he said in regard to the increased production of food and the effect upon world peace. He stated:
I realize of course that there are serious problems of distribution as you were reminded by your president this mcfrning. But those in the world who are not so fortunate as we in this North American continent are becoming more and more aware of their poverty in relation to our plenty. It has been ably stated that "never before has the close relationship between food and peace, food and justice, and food and human happiness been so widely accepted". We can improve still further our farming methods and go on increasing our productivity and thus meet our own needs and do our share to meet that world problem.
In the light of that picture displayed by the quotation from "External Affairs", by the Prime Minister's speech and by the attitude taken by the FAO conference, it is interesting to note what developed at the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held at Montreal in January of this year. For instance, what was the advice given to that convention by the Minister of Agriculture? What was the advice given to that convention by Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and former president of the International Federation of Agriculture Producers? So far as the minister was concerned, he refused to give farmers any advice as to what they should do. He stated he would outline to them today's picture, and then it was up to the farm organizations to use their best judgment concerning what should be done. In his speech he kept to that idea and did not give the farmers any advice. However, in the discussion period, when he was asked point blank by some of the farmers as to what the market situation would be in the future, he did become more explicit. I quote from the Western Producer of January 31. The press clipping is headed:	"Production program farmer's
responsibility, Gardiner says." In reply to a question the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) went on:
Warning farmers against embarking on highly stepped-up production of food for the domestic market, Mr. Gardiner said earnestly that it was true the government did want to see production up. But as long as Britain lacked1 the dollars to buy Canadian cheese and bacon and eggs he was not going to tell any farmer to produce more hogs, more eggs or more cheese. Every farmer should know as well as he did that if Canada produced 15 per cent more hogs the price would go down to the American price in the absence of an export market in Britain.
The question of international exchange was a matter for countries to settle. He wanted to see bigger export markets as well as anyone, but farmers might as well face facts as they existed.
The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Hannam, drew a clear

The Address-Mr. Quelch picture when he addressed the convention. He did not mince words. I hold in my hand a press clipping from the Western Farm Leader, dated February 1, 1952, which reads:
Hannam states commodity program essential.
To take the position that Canada and other advanced countries should produce to capacity because people somewhere need the product is a fine humanitarian point of view, but it is a theoretical and impractical one unless an international commodity program exists to organize and supervise distribution.
Then he went on:
"Without expanding export markets," said the president (and this had been emphasized at the FAO conference), "our producers, and producers in other exporting countries, are in a like position- can do little but ignore the plea of the recent conference, much as they recognize the world need, and desire the opportunity of helping to meet it.
"They know too well that expanding production-without any assurance of a market for the additional product is too great a risk because it can clog markets, undermine prices and agricultural economies." Without export markets, the effect of such a policy would be "the very opposite of that which the efforts of well-intentioned producers would be designed to achieve."
I was interested to note that when he spoke to the women at the convention of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture he told them that the farmers would be crazy to expand production in the face of the present situation. Let me quote his words, as given in the Rural Co-operator, January, 1952:
"If we have no machinery to take care of all this increased production we'd be crazy to go about it. It would undermine our present surplus market, depress our home market and ruin our entire agricultural economy. That's the stark truth of it, and we've got to be realistic enough to realize it," said Mr. Hannam.
The Prime Minister calls for an increase in production of food; FAO calls for an increase in production. We all recognize that if there is to be peace in the world there must be an increase in production. I am not criticizing the Minister of Agriculture or Mr. Hannam for placing the picture they did before the federation of agriculture because they were placing the facts before them, but I am criticizing most bitterly the government policy that makes such a picture possible. The government are to blame for that situation; I certainly would not blame the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture and Mr. Hannam now both support the idea for some sort of a world food board or an international commodity clearing house for the purpose of distributing, or holding and distributing surpluses to needy nations.
This question has been before FAO for the last five years. Officials of that organization have from time to time submitted proposals to the conference of member nations, but unfortunately member nations have invariably voted down those proposals. Let me briefly review. The first proposal by FAO was for
[Mr. Quelch. 1
a world food board to buy up surpluses in times of plenty and hold and distribute them in times of scarcity. That seemed to be a sound proposal, but it was voted down by the member nations. The next proposal was for an international commodity clearing house. Again, this was turned down by the member nations, and it was voted against by Canada as well. It is very interesting to note the reasons given by the conference for turning down the proposal for setting up an international commodity clearing house. I hold in my hand the report of the conference as printed in the "International Federation of Agricultural Producers Bulletin", December, 1949. It is headed "Report of the Fifth FAO Conference" held in Washington, November 21*-December 7, 1949. It goes on to say:
In rejecting the short term trading functions of the international commodity clearing house, the conference observed:
(a)	That the accumulation of inconvertible currency would represent additional indebtedness by the deficit countries involving the burden of eventual repayment in terms of additional exports of goods and services and would have the effects of delaying the general convertibility.
What was the problem before the FAO conference? The problem was to bring about an expansion of the production of agricultural produce and provide for its distribution. Convertibility of currency can only be justified if it facilitates the carrying out of the problem. What do we find here? Here we find that a proposal to provide for an expansion of production and for its distribution was turned down on the grounds it might interfere with convertibility. In other words, they were confusing the shadow with the substance and the means with the end.
Speaking in this house on December 27 last year, I said that the Minister of Agriculture had voted against the international commodity clearing house on the ground that Canada could carry out the proposals contained in the international commodity clearing house for the purchasing and the holding of surpluses for their later distribution. The minister took exception to that remark and said that all he had been referring to was wheat, and definitely said that he had never suggested that Canada could do such a thing. Well, I did not make a statement like that without good foundation. I knew very well the minister had made such a statement, but unfortunately at that time I did not have a copy of his speech in the house. Therefore I am going to quote just exactly what the minister did say when he addressed the FAO conference at the time the international commodity clearing Louse was being considered. I have a copy of his speech here. I quote from page 5:
Canada, therefore, is prepared to give serious consideration to any international action designed to

attain production and distribution of food. From this point of view we are interested in the proposal advanced by the director general for an international commodity clearing house. While endorsing the principle underlying this proposal we are not in agreement with the means which, it has been suggested, are necessary to reach the objectives. In this connection we may appear to agree with what has been said by the United Kingdom and United States representatives.
Any transactions developed under the short term trading functions will be subject to concurrence by the governments concerned, and the major details of such transactions will also be subject to agreement by governments. This being the case it hardly seems necessary to havse an international agency actually buying and selling in commodity markets. It may even be questioned whether such activity in commodity markets by an international agency is desirable. It seems to us, therefore, that the question of the creation of a large capital fund for such a purpose is not necessarily an issue.
And later:
Lord Boyd Orr, in presenting his proposal for a world food board, had in mind the fact that the world had surpluses during certain periods and extreme shortages in other periods. It was his purpose to stabilize returns to producers and costs to consumers by setting aside surplus quantities in good years for periods of shortages. 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.
So Mr. Gardiner cannot see that it would help any for the international commodity clearing house to hold a fund for the purchase of these commodities. He considers that nations could just as well do it, and he cannot see that it would be necessary for the international commodity clearing house to buy up surpluses and hold them because he says that, in his opinion, national governments could do it. He did point out that Canada had indulged in such a practice in regard to wheat.
Now, coming back to my original point, that the problem of primary importance today is the expansion of the production of food, and the provision for its distribution throughout the world, we now find that the picture given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is bound to lead to the conclusion that it would be unwise to expand production of certain foods in this country.
I remember some years ago when in this house we were discussing the United Nations organization some members suggested that the reason the league of nations had failed was because it did not have an army at its disposal. At that time I criticized that suggestion, and pointed out that to my mind the reason the league of nations had failed was not because it lacked an army, but rather because the nations who were members of 55704-16
The Address-Mr. Quelch the league lacked either the will or the sincerity to implement the policies that were essential to the maintenance of peace. I believe that is true in regard to the league, and I say it is equally true in regard to the United Nations organization. I doubt very much if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) would deny that that is true, at least in so far as member nations behind the iron curtain are concerned. I would say it is also true in regard to Canada and the United States, because we recognize that one of the major problems is that of getting food to the people who need it. Yet we are not prepared to maintain in this country a policy which will make it possible for the farmers to expand their production.
And, as the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said, under the situation as it is, farmers would be crazy to expand production of food. However, I am not prepared to accept the statement that unless an international food exchange is set up Canada cannot go all-out in expanding her production of food. Mind you, I favour the setting up of a body such as the international commodity clearing house; but if we are not able to get the friendly nations to agree to the setting up of such a body, then in my opinion Canada must be prepared to go ahead and provide for the expansion of her agricultural production. She must see to it that the production is distributed among the people who need it.
Mind you, I believe that that can be accomplished without creating a hardship for anyone. On the contrary I would say that a policy of that kind could very well still further expand the prosperity of this nation. I would say the first thing to do is to endeavour to expand the home market in Canada. It is all very well to talk about the difficulty of getting rid of the surplus in foreign countries, but are we certain that we have done everything in our power to expand the home market?
I am satisfied we have not, and I shall refer to that at greater length in a moment. Then, to the extent that we cannot market our produce in Canada, or exchange it for the goods of other nations, we must be prepared to sell our surplus to other nations in exchange for their currencies. And to the extent that those currencies cannot be utilized for the purchase of their goods, we must be prepared to invest those currencies within those countries in order to expand their production, so that they will be in a position to pay for their imports with exports.
There are two things to be considered in this regard. It may be that the nations to which we export goods have goods with which

The Address-Mr. Quelch to pay us in return, but which we are not prepared to accept. Or, on the other hand, it may be that their productive capacity is so low that they cannot produce the goods to pay for their imports. Then, in that case, where the productive capacity is low, and where we have exports that we are able to let them have, I think it would be our duty to invest the currencies that we receive from them to expand the production of such nations.
It may be asked: Would such a policy be burdensome on our people? The answer is no. This would not divert any capital from investment in Canada, because it would apply only to goods that could not be consumed in Canada, or exchanged for the goods of other nations.
Then, how should the Canadian government pay for these surplus goods? Well, so long as we have a surplus productive capacity in this country-for instance, so long as we have anywhere from 300,000 to 400,000 unemployed, men who could be used to increase the production of the country

and so long as we have expanding inventories, it seems to me that the purchase of surpluses to provide for investments abroad could be financed at least in part by the Bank of Canada.
To the extent that this might unduly increase inflationary pressure, it could be financed by borrowing the savings of the people. I think, however, the important point is that it would not be necessary to finance by taxation, because it would be a capital investment, and should be regarded as deferred consumption.
Furthermore it might be considered good policy to offset the heavy American investment that is taking place in Canada today by encouraging Canadian investment outside the country. So that in the future we will have wealth shipped into Canada on account of those investments to balance the wealth we have to ship out of Canada on account of the American investments in this country. However, as I said before, I am not satisfied for one moment that we are making the best possible use of the home market. I am satisfied that we are not developing the home market to the fullest extent, when I see in this country many groups of people enduring a very low standard of living.
For instance, when we have such people as old age pensioners living on $40 a month, can it be argued successfully that those people are consuming all they want to consume, or all they should be able to consume? We could very well increase their pension payments to $50 a month, and that $10 a month

extra would help provide a market for these surplus goods about which the Minister of Agriculture is so concerned.
Apparently the minister thinks it would not be safe for the farmers to expand production for the home market, because the market could not absorb it. Certainly we can take steps to expand the purchasing power of the low income groups in this country so that they can enjoy a healthy diet and at the same time provide a market for a proportion of these surplus goods.
In addition to those receiving old age pensions we have people who are incapacitated. They do not even get $40 per month. There is no provision of any kind made for these people. Surely no one can argue that a country such as Canada, a country which is worried as to what it will do with its surplus production, cannot afford to provide pensions for people who are physically incapacitated.
Then we have the recipients of war veterans allowances living on around $40 per month. Surely they could be paid $50 per month. That would help to increase the market for Canadian goods. I am very glad the government has indicated that the special committee on veterans affairs will be set up to deal with this matter. I do not think it is to the credit of this government that they have allowed these men to wait this long in order to get a standard of living to which they are entitled.
In addition to those whom I have mentioned, we have the unemployed and unemployables. No doubt if these people had a decent income today it would provide additional markets for our production. The additional demands by these people would all help to expand the home market.
I suppose that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will suggest that such a policy would be inflationary. You cannot have it both ways. If we cannot expand production owing to a lack of markets, then expanding the home market will not cause inflation. It seems to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated a somewhat confused state of mind when he spoke the other day on inflation and of the danger of increasing our imports from Great Britain. As reported on page 172 of Hansard of March 6, 1952, he said:
The most effective way would1 be to make more commodities available to be exchanged for the purchasing power distributed-and distributed so widely-among the public. I think everyone must agree that that is the only or, if not the only, certainly the surest way of combating effectively and of retarding inflation.
Then on page 174:
There again is a situation in which the one partial remedy would be the additional absorption

of British exports, or, from our point of view, British imports, in the Canadian market. We have had complaints from more than one quarter that some of our unemployment was the consequence of competition by imports from the British market that could not be met by our Canadian industries. That is also something that has to be taken into account. We have to look at the repercussions of these things on every segment of the Canadian economy. Can we increase our absorption of exports from the United Kingdom to any substantial degree without disturbing our own economy?
There again it seems to me that the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. If, on the one hand, there are too many dollars chasing too few goods, then surely expanding imports from Great Britain should help to satisfy the demand of those dollars that are chasing around looking for something to buy. The Prime Minister says that we need more production in order to satisfy the demand of the surplus dollars, and on the other hand he argues that if we bring more goods into this country from Great Britain that may cause unemployment.
The Minister of Finance is quite fond of talking about too many dollars chasing too few goods. The situation that exists at the present time does not appear to justify that statement. On the one hand we have the Minister of Agriculture warning the farmers not to increase the production of agricultural products because if they do there may not be markets. Then we find the textile industry in a depressed state trying to find markets. Then we find inventories of many industries piling up. That does not look like too many dollars chasing too few goods. I am afraid the minister is too fond of painting such a picture so that he can get on his high horse and try to rope in more dollars.
I should like to say a few words about the prices of farm products. I am satisfied that if we want an increase in the production of agricultural products we will have to be prepared to maintain support prices at a proper level, a level which will give the farmer his fair share of the national income. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that many economists state that you cannot control prices. They say that to do so will mean running foul of the law of supply and demand. When people talk about the law of supply and demand it seems to me that they ignore completely the fact that the government by its action can affect both supply and demand.
The government by its policies can cause either an increase in production or a decrease in production. The government by its policies can cause either an increase in demand or a decrease in demand. So long as the government is in a position to bring about an expansion of production or a 55704-164
The Address-Mr. Quelch decrease, an expansion of demand or a decrease, it is in a position to maintain support prices.
Support prices should be established on the basis of parity. If that were done it would bring about an expansion of production. On the other hand1, if we are going to tell the farmers that they must be subject to the law of supply and demand we are not going to get increased production. Why? For the simple reason that if they are going to be subject to the law of supply and demand, every time the farmers expand their production in order to provide a reserve of food for needy nations, that state of affairs will be used as an excuse to force the prices of farm products down to a point where the farmers may receive less for their increased production than they were receiving previously. The natural result would be to discourage production.
It may be a fine humanitarian thing to say that the farmers should expand their production of food in order to feed the starving masses of the world. But the farmers want assurance that there will be markets for their production if they produce. In the past we have called upon the farmers to make sacrifices of many hundreds of millions of dollars in helping to subsidize the people of Britain and the people of Canada with cheap bread. It is time that we should be prepared to pay the farmers a price that will guarantee to them their cost of production and will bear a fair relationship to the prices they have to pay for the things they require.
The Minister of Agriculture has warned the farmers that if they expand production they are liable to be without a market. The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has warned farmers that they will be crazy to take such action. The situation being what it is I intend to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) which reads:
That the following be added to the address:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	To provide adequate inducements for the possible and essential expansion in the production of foods in Canada, and
(b)	To provide for the economic marketing and distribution of whatever part of our food production may become surplus.
I intend also to support the amendment to the amendment which reads:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
(c)	To establish a federal authority to deal with meat and with dairy products during the present emergency, with power to establish floor prices for producers, to protect consumers by control of retail prices, and to arrange for the equitable distribution of such products during the said emergency.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy


Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne before us at the present time indicates that we shall have very little new legislation before us at this session and that much of our work will consist of the consideration of legis-latio namending statutes already on the statute books. Among the legislation that I am sure will be welcomed by the house is the proposed legislation pertaining to a further Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan and for technical assistance to underdeveloped areas. We can only hope that such assistance as is foreshadowed in the speech from the throne will be neither too little nor tdo late.
The house will certainly welcome much of the amending legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne, particularly that pertaining to the War Veterans Allowance Act. Many of us felt last session that when the basic pension to veterans was increased the veterans allowance should have been increased at the same time. It is encouraging to know that such increases as are to be granted this session will be made retroactive to the first of the year. I should like to point out that we sincerely hope that when that act comes before us for amendment there will be provision for one group of citizens not covered by the War Veterans Allowance Act. I refer [DOT] particularly to those in receipt of dependents' pensions, particularly those parents now growing old who are in receipt of pensions because of the loss in many instances of their only son who was at that time their main support. Upon inquiry at the office of the veterans allowance commission I could be given no assurance that even now the government contemplates increasing the pension to those dependents. I would certainly urge upon the minister the necessity of including that particular group along with those already in receipt of veterans allowance.
We shall welcome the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Certainly experience in the administration of that act goes to show that very drastic improvements are needed, and before I take my seat I hope to dwell at some length on the nature of the improvements required. A subject of very grave concern to the people in my riding received very scant attention in the speech from the throne. I refer to the subject of unemployment. The only mention of employment in the speech from the throne was the very complacent remark that generally speaking employment remains at a high level. The fact that there were three or four hundred thousand Canadians ready

and willing to work and looking for work but unable to find it received very scant attention from the government.
Those three or four hundred thousand unemployed represent well over a million men, women and children who are deprived through unemployment of their weekly pay cheques. About 80 per cent of them were in receipt of the scant unemployment insurance payments. Some 200,000 Canadian men, women and children do not even receive the benefit of unemployment insurance. I think a matter which the government has failed to face seriously is the question of providing full employment for our people. As a matter of fact I think that neither this government, with its devotion to the free enterprise system, nor those national organizations which spend much of their time, energy and money in eulogizing the virtues of the free enterprise system, have yet faced up to the fact that that system in times of peace has utterly failed at any time in our history to provide the Canadian people with full employment. We were lifted out of the greatest slough of unemployment of all times by world war II. Only world war II enabled us to overcome the unemployment difficulties of the 1930's.
On the eve of Korea unemployment was again raising its ugly head and becoming a menace to hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens. Once again it was the stark reality of war that enabled us to solve our unemployment problem for the time being. Once again during the past winter, notwithstanding the fact we are in the midst of a rearmament program, we were again faced with that recurring problem. We find three or four hundred thousand of our people unemployed. No wonder thousands of our people are asking today what would be the situation with respect to unemployment under this government if we were not in the midst of a rearmament program. Must we be forced to accept the theory that a Liberal government, a free enterprise government, can do nothing about unemployment except through the medium of military expenditure? That belief is growing in Canada. When the condition of unemployment, particularly in the Toronto area, was brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), he found satisfaction in the fact that the coming of spring would help us to rectify the situation. He assures us that the unemployment problem is a seasonal one, but it is a problem that has been recurring with the seasons. No effort has been made by the government and no plans have been provided to stave off unemployment-seasonal unemployment, if you wish. Early last spring it

was quite evident to anyone who gave any attention to the situation that during this winter we would be faced with large numbers of unemployed; yet no effort was made to remedy this recurring evil other than to rely upon unemployment insurance. We wait until our unemployment situation reaches its peak in midwinter; then we console ourselves with the fact that spring is coming and with it the unemployment situation will disappear. So we do nothing until the next season comes along. We forget about the unemployment which recurs each winter until it is upon us again.
That, I submit, just is not good enough for the Canadian people. If the free enterprise system cannot in and of itself provide full employment for our people, then it behooves the government, in the interests of those people who elected them, to take such steps as are necessary to supplement the efforts of the free enterprise system with a much needed and useful program of public works. Such a program should be ready long before the unemployment crisis comes upon us. Since last spring, when it became evident that we were going to be faced with unemployment this winter, this government has had ample time to make some provision whereby the slack in employment might be taken up. If they were not ready to absorb those unemployed people in the production of armaments then some other government project, much needed and useful in the interests of the community, should have been ready to be undertaken to keep our people employed during the winter.
First and foremost in any such public works program I think should be a low rental housing project. Dr. Firestone, the economic adviser to the Department of Trade and Commerce and also to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as reported in the Globe and Mail of September 21 last, told a Toronto audience that in spite of the fact that from 1949 to 1951 we built close to
100.000	housing units each year, by 1955 we would need to build anywhere from 115,000 to 135,000 housing units per annum to catch up on our backlog. He assured us that at the end of 1951 some 500,000 Canadian families were still without homes.
The relation of such a building program to unemployment can be seen when it is realized that when we built about 90,000 housing units in 1949 we gave year round employment to
235.000	Canadians-and here I am quoting Dr. Firestone's figures-either in building the homes or in providing the necessary materials and services for those homes. According to Dr. Firestone the building of 135,000 housing units per annum would provide year round
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy employment for at least 300,000 Canadians. Had we this year been engaged in the building of 135,000 housing units instead of finding an actual reduction in the number built, many of the problems of our unemployed1 people would have been solved.
One of the best alternatives to military expenditure for the purpose of providing employment is the development of our resources and the building of homes for the Canadian people. Unless we are to get to the point where we have to depend upon either war or preparations for war to provide employment for our people, we must turn our attention to some of these projects which are needed by this country. If we are to do that I suggest we must first recognize that housing is a social matter. Housing is not something that can be considered primarily as a business activity. A report on housing prepared back in 1949 by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities states at page 7:
We must keep on reminding ourselves that the purpose of housing is to house people and to house them in such a way as to encourage good family life and to provide them with the amenities necessary to health, welfare and good citizenship, even if, in order to do so, we must introduce public policies not normally associated with an economically operated business activity.
Housing in 1949 was the number one domestic problem facing the people and government of Canada, and in my opinion, that is still the case today. If we set as; our goal the provision of adequate housing for the Canadian people at prices they can afford to pay or, where they cannot buy, the provision of decent rental houses at rents they can afford to pay, we shall be moving constructively toward achieving a more certain full employment. Moreover we will be giving our people a very vital and real stake in our democracy.
The question may be asked immediately, what can the government do? As I have already said, I think we must first recognize that housing is a social matter; that our concern should be the welfare of the people and not the profits or security of the lending institutions of this country. This will involve releasing the government housing authority, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from its bondage to the lending institutions of this country. Either do that, or relieve the lending institutions of some of the credit restrictions imposed on them by the government through the Bank of Canada. There is today a very wide market for homes that could be built, even at today's prices. There is the material and manpower available, but there are no finances.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
Only yesterday I read correspondence from two of the largest lending institutions in this country who said that they did not have mortgage money available for home building on any large scale. The best that they could advance to an individual builder was enough money to finance ten or fifteen units. I am told on good authority that the lending institutions in this Ottawa area this year had only about $600,000 of mortgage money available to put out for the building of homes under our national housing scheme. Everywhere throughout this country builders are finding it impossible to secure money to build homes for which the people are clamouring. These builders have the material and the manpower to do so, but because the finance companies have .such a stranglehold upon the government-operated housing authority, there is a bottleneck. I suggest that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)' get into a huddle to see if they cannot do something to make funds available to the builders to provide homes for our people.
Then, there is the question of just how much of our unemployment problem today is the direct result of the government's fiscal policy. There is no question but that the government's policy is directly responsible for the decline in home building. The government has not yet devised a policy that will meet that particular need. While the minister of resources is trying to get more houses built, the Minister of Finance adopts policies that curtail our building program. I think it is conceded by most people in Canada today, except possibly the cabinet and the manufacturers association or the chamber of commerce, that the government's fiscal policy designed to curb inflation is discriminating against the working class people in this country. I hear that charge against the minister's policy wherever I go, among the working class people.
On the one hand, the government allows prices to rise to unprecedented heights. On the other hand, they take away from the consuming public $700 million in surplus taxes for the purpose of reducing the spending power. Then, by additional excise taxes, sales taxes, credit restrictions, they price many of the necessities completely beyond the small purchasing power that is left to the ordinary low income people. Take the government's restrictions on automobiles-here I want to tell the Minister of Finance that this is not propaganda from the automobile dealers association, and I have not been approached by any automobile

dealers. No automobile dealer has held out to me the promise of free publicity or anything else in order to take up his case. In my own riding I have been approached by numerous working class people who want to buy secondhand cars in order to take their families out into the country or themselves to work, and who just cannot raise that fifty per cent down payment which the government's policy requires. I have received letters from numerous working class people in my riding who want to buy new washing machines for their wives, but those washing machines are priced beyond their reach because of the government's taxation policy. Apparently the Minister of Finance considers that a washing machine is a luxury. Let me assure him that in the working class home today it is no longer a luxury. These people in my riding who are being thrown on the unemployment market today because of the closing down of washing machine factories are blaming the government directly for the un employment.
The government has persistently refused over the years to impose price controls. It is rather an unusual circumstance to find that the only place where they impose direct price control is on the over-all price of a house, while at the same time they make no effort to control the price of the building material that goes into that house. Apparently the government is relying largely on its fiscal policy of high taxation and credit restrictions to curb inflation. In order to curb inflation, must we have unemployment thrust upon hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens? Must we force hundreds of thousands of our people to go underfed through the long cold winter months in order to curb inflation? That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his colleagues are actually forcing the Canadian people to do. Why must these sacrifices be imposed upon one class of people only? The man with money is not affected, or not seriously affected, by these credit restrictions. He can buy a new or secondhand automobile any time he wants to, or as many as he likes. He can buy as many electrical appliances as he likes. It is those in the low-income group who are being forced to pay that sacrifice by reason of this government's policy.
In his answer to a question that I raised here a few days ago the minister found considerable consolation in the fact that the majority of those unemployed people in Toronto were drawing unemployment insurance. I know, as he knows, and as every one of us knows, that these unemployment insurance benefits have proved a godsend to those hundreds of thousands of people who have been unemployed. There is no

question of that. But in a great many instances, even where the worker is in receipt of full benefits, the unemployment insurance is inadequate if a man with a family has to depend on the benefits alone. The maximum for the married man is somewhere around $21 a week. In the township of York the unemployment benefits are equivalent to the amount paid in relief to a family of three. Any man receiving unemployment insurance who has more than three in his family gets less from his unemployment insurance than he would get were he on relief in the municipality. A married man with a family of six would get $84 a month in unemployment insurance. In direct relief the municipality would pay $145 a month. Even if he has five or six children the man and his family must subsist on unemployment insurance amounting to approximately $84 a month.
When the minister considers amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I would suggest that the first thing to do, if at all possible, is to raise the weekly payment. The sum of $21 a week today just is not sufficient for a man with a family, particularly with today's prices. He just cannot subsist on it.
The second suggestion pertains to the waiting period. Theoretically a man must go one week before unemployment insurance comes into effect. Then he is supposed to have another week, or a total of sixteen days officially; nine days maximum from the time his unemployment insurance benefits start. Relief officers in Toronto and in York township have told me that they know of numbers of cases where men going on unemployment insurance have had to wait as long as 35 days before they were able to draw unemployment insurance. The Toronto offices are simply bogged down with the work of handing out unemployment insurance. I have gone into these offices. I have found the stairs jammed. The ones that I went into, the two that affect my riding, are on the second floor. I have seen the stairs jammed solid with people. If a fire ever broke out there is not the slimmest chance of any of these people ever getting out of these buildings. The upstairs floor was crowded. I have seen as many as 800 people crowded into that upstairs room. I have seen the stairs jammed and a line-up nearly a block long outside the building. These offices just cannot handle the amount of business that they have been called upon to handle during the past winter. There is no reason why people living as far north as Willowdale, or up in the northwest end of my riding, should have to come downtown to Spadina once every week in order to draw their unemployment insurance. There is no
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy good reason why we should not have an unemployment insurance office somewhere in the vicinity of Eglinton avenue, which would be within easy reach of people living in the north end of the city and the townships. It would save congestion at these downtown offices. The officers tell me that the business could be handled much more efficiently if it were more decentralized than it is at the present time.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us why the unemployment insurance people cannot do as the workmen's compensation people do in the province of Ontario. When a man can establish the fact that he is unemployed, instead of having to wait nine days, fifteen days or twenty days, why is it not possible to make some arrangement with the welfare officers in the municipality whereby they could advance to that man his unemployment insurance payments and collect them from the unemployment insurance office when they come due? Instead of having a man wait two or three weeks for his unemployment insurance he could get it from the welfare officers. They will co-operate. They do co-operate with the workmen's compensation.
A man in my riding who has a claim against the workmen's compensation does not have to wait until he can draw his compensation from the board. He can go to the welfare officers. They are provided with a form by the workmen's compensation board through which the man can immediately begin drawing his workmen's compensation. If, after the case has been carefully examined it is found that he has no claim on workmen's compensation, then the township has to stand the loss, and welfare officers tell me that they are prepared to do that. They cannot sit there and see people starve for lack of a few dollars.
But in very few cases has it occurred where they have not been compensated by the workmen's compensation board. So far as the welfare board in my particular riding is concerned, I can assure the minister that they will co-operate fully with him in overcoming that difficulty of having unemployed people wait even nine days or five days. If it could be settled in five days, it would be easy. But even that will imply twelve days, if it is reduced to five.
The point I suggest the minister must understand is that in most cases the working man has no income, once his pay cheque stops. He has no reserve. He cannot afford to wait ten days, fifteen days, or two or three weeks before he gets his unemployment insurance. In many cases his pay cheque is spent before he gets it. When he gets out

The Address-Mr. Wright of employment, and has to wait, he has no recourse but to run bills with his neighbouring grocer and butcher.
There are one or two other points I should like to mention-and in doing so I shall be as brief as possible. I think something should be done to ensure that those who pay unemployment insurance over a period of years are not rendered ineligible by reason of some technicality. I know the department has taken almost every precaution it can. However, there have come to my attention several cases of men who paid unemployment insurance for two or three years and then became employers again. I have in mind the case of a building contractor who went back to work, paying unemployment insurance for a while, only to find that he had not enough stamps to entitle him to unemployment insurance. I have taken those cases to the officer in charge. I will say this for the officers, that in every case they have taken the trouble to make investigations. In some cases they have found there were technical errors and, as a result, the unemployment insurance has been paid.
But what happens? Those offices are so overcrowded, they are so bogged down with from 800 to 1,100 people coming in every day for unemployment insurance, that the ordinary individual just does not have a chance in the world to have his case taken up by the supervisor, or anyone other than a man or woman at the desk. The cases have to be rushed through, without the opportunity for proper investigation.
I have only one more suggestion in this connection: Unemployment supervisors-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I
understood the hon. member was about to conclude. I must tell him that he has exhausted the time at his disposal.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and shall deliver my last message to the minister on another occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect it would be necessary for me to take part in the debate at this point. However, as it would seem that Your Honour was about to put the question, I believe I should say a few words with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce).
If hon. members could see my notes, and how closely they follow the speech made by


the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), I am sure they would be surprised. Perhaps, however, it is not so surprising when it is realized that we both represent farming constituencies in western Canada, and that both of us have farmed and therefore know some of the problems connected with agriculture.
I am not going to quote again many of the quotations placed on record by the hon. member for Acadia, when he was referring to what had been said by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by Mr. Han-nam, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. But I do intend to emphasize some of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Acadia. I do so because I believe they are important, and that they represent the thinking of a great portion of the agricultural industry at this time.
I was in Europe for a short time this winter, and I can assure the house that on coming back to Canada I appreciate more than ever our position and our ability to meet our needs in this country, and to produce surpluses of many products needed not only in Europe but in many other parts of the world.
Yet we find in Canada, as has been indicated, an agricultural policy with respect to the production of food which indicates that we must keep our production of food in Canada in balance with the amount that we can hope to sell on our home market, and that we must ignore the need for food we see throughout the world today.
This is not new. This policy has been the same for five years. About that time Sir John Boyd Orr, then head of the food and agriculture organization, made the statement that three out of four people in the world went to bed hungry every night of the year. I have never seen that statement denied by any authority, and I take it therefore that it is a true statement of the position in the world today with regard to food.
Yet we in Canada seem unable to devise t financial policy which will enable us to distribute some of the production that we could have if we were to use our full productive capacity in this country. I think some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Acadia are good ones. As a matter of fact they are suggestions this group made back in 1946 and 1947. Our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), stated at that time that Canada should be prepared to export some of our products, and accept in payment for (them sterling or other currencies. If it was impossible for those countries requiring food to obtain the necessary dollars, he said we

might give consideration to accepting their own currency. If we accepted that currency we could use it in assisting these countries in developing some of their own resources.
As I say, we advocated that back in 1946 and 1947. But the government has never seen fit to accept that policy. We have heard a lot of pious wishes; we hear speeches made by different members of the government indicating the need, and indicating that to stop communism in the world it will be necessary for us to feed some of the hungry peoples of the world. But there has been very little action, very little by way of practical action to implement that policy.
I agree fully with the hon. member for Acadia when he says it is possible to do that. And unless we do something about that situation, so long as the people of the rest of the world see in Canada the possibilities of greater food production and, at the same time, see our Minister of Agriculture and the heads of our farm organizations saying that at least we must contain production to the point where we can sell it at a reasonable price to our own people, at a time when the peoples in other countries are hungry, we are just asking for the spread of communism in the world today. Make no mistake about that. We are giving those people the type of ammunition they need and which no army can stop, no matter how much we spend on armed forces throughout the world today. Unless we are prepared to do more than that, then I say that a great deal of the money we are spending on preparedness and in building up protective forces will be wasted. I think that point should be emphasized.
Then a word with regard to our home market. Is there room for more production to supply our home market? Mention has been made of the fact that the war veterans allowance does not provide sufficient purchasing power to those receiving it to maintain a decent standard of living. The $40 old age pension does not provide sufficient purchasing power for many of our older people to maintain the standard of living that should be possible in this country. No pensions are provided for the incapacitated and those suffering from permanent disability. Many other classes could be named, such as retired civil servants and people living on fixed incomes or annuities which they purchased back in the 1930's or early 1940's when the dollar was worth much more than it is worth today. These people are finding that when their annuities come due they will not purchase what is required to give them a decent standard of living. All these people could consume more in the way of food than they are at the present time.
The Address-Mr. Wright
Then as to the consumption of milk, back in 1946 and 1947 when we subsidized the sale of milk, when milk could be obtained for ten or twelve cents a quart, our consumption was much larger than it is today. Because of the reduced ability of those who need milk for their children to buy it we find that the consumption of milk and other dairy products is being reduced. We cannot get a greater production of milk unless the producer is paid an incentive price to produce.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has stated time and again that in setting floor prices under agricultural products they were not considered1 to be incentive prices, that it was not the policy of the government to set floor prices under agricultural products on an incentive basis, but simply to prevent a debacle as far as the sale of that particular product was concerned.
Unless the farmer receives an incentive price he is not going to produce to capacity, either for the home market or for the world market. Surely we have enough intelligence in Canada today to devise ways and means of giving incentive prices to the producers of our food products. When the gold mines found that their costs of production were such that they could not get a fair return, they were able to come to the government and get a subsidy in the form of an incentive price for their production. Which is the more important in the world today, the production of gold or the production of food? Which is the most likely to stop the spread of communism throughout the world? In my opinion to ask the question is almost ridiculous. You cannot eat gold, you cannot wear it, you cannot do anything with it except bury it in another hole in the ground.
These are matters which are important and which come directly under the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). Therefore it is the intention of this group to support that amendment. We believe that we should have maximum production in this country. How can we get greater production? I want to speak for a moment or two about the Carrot river section which covers my own constituency and northwestern Manitoba. The northeastern part of that valley contains the largest new area of productive land available in Canada today. This section stretches up through the Carrot river valley, through the estuary of the Carrot river and the Saskatchewan river into lake Winnipeg.
It is estimated that in this area there are from 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 acres of the most productive land to be found anywhere in Canada. All this is available for development provided certain diking is done and
242	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Wright certain flood control measures are carried out. During the last year P.F.R.A. engineers have been making surveys. I have not as yet seen their report, but people in that area on whose judgment I rely tell me that there is no doubt that this land can be made available for an expenditure of around $5 per acre. That is probably more than the provincial governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan could afford to spend, but it is not more than the Dominion of Canada can afford to spend.
By developing that area we can put into cultivation one of the most productive sections in western Canada. This section would produce wheat, not at the average yield of some 16 bushels per acre which has prevailed throughout western Canada, but at the rate of 25 bushels to the acre, which is the rate which has been maintained here for the last 25 years. Not only can wheat be raised in this area; coarse grains can be produced and the largest production of sweet clover and alfalfa seed in Canada is in that area today. Mixed farming could be carried on. There could be an abundant production to be used to feed some of the people I have mentioned, both at home and abroad.
In my opinion there is no area in Canada today where such returns can be obtained for the expenditure of a similar amount of money, and this would include oil, minerals or other developments. I believe that this government should provide the necessary funds to carry this development into effect in the next two or three years.
I should like to refer for a moment to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) and which refers to the serious situation existing today in the following words:
(c) To establish a federal authority to deal with meat and with dairy products during the present emergency, with power to establish floor prices for producers, to protect consumers by control of retail prices, and to arrange for the equitable distribution of such products during the said emergency.
While we are urging that these measures should be taken now to take care of the present emergency, we submit that similar measures should have been put into effect some time ago. As a matter of fact, last summer when a disastrous drop in the price of hogs on our Canadian markets occurred we asked that an investigation should be made by the combines commissioner. I have in my hand a letter which I passed across the floor of the house to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) on November 15 of last year. I am going to read it to the house to indicate what

I was asking for at that time. It is addressed to the Hon. Stuart Garson, Minister of Justice, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
May I, in accordance with section 10A of the Combines Investigation Act, chapter 26, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, register the following complaint and request an investigation thereof by the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act. Between July 21 of this year and September 22, prices for grade A hogs dropped from $40 per hundredweight to $29 per hundredweight on the Toronto market. (See table I). A similar drop took place in every other major centre in Canada. In other words, there was a decrease in hog prices in this period of approximately 25 per cent.
The reason for this drop is not readily apparent. As you will note from weekly figures on total inspected slaughterings (table I) and from the comparative figures for the previous three years, there was not during these three months any abnormal increase in hog marketings which might account for the depression in price. The domestic disappearance of pork from inspected slaughterings was 655,176,000 in the year ending October 1, 1951, compared with 629,573,000 the year before. It is evident, therefore, that there has been no substantial drop in demand for pork products.
May I also draw your attention to the fact that during the period under discussion there was no similar drop in the retail prices of pork products to the consumer (see table III). Between July and October there was a slight drop, approximately 10 per cent, in the retail price of ham, Montreal, and of pork shoulder. The price of pork loins remained about the same while the price of side bacon rose a little. In any event there has been no general decrease in retail pork prices of the magnitude of 25 per cent. Such decrease as there has been has lagged far behind the drop in the price of hogs both in time and in amount.
It may be suggested that there is inevitably a considerable delay between the time a change takes place in the price of hogs and the time that change in price is reflected on the retail market, the delay being occasioned by the length of time required for processing and distribution.
I want hon. members to mark this.
But may I call your attention to the fact that when meat prices, beef and pork, rose sharply following decontrol of prices late in 1947 and the negotiation of new British contracts early in 1948, there was no such delay in passing the increases on to the consumer. The following statement was made with respect to this matter by the royal commission on prices, 1948, at page 100 of volume III of their report:
"Those firms owning beef and pork in cold storage at the end of 1947 made substantial fortuitous gains as a result of inventory appreciation, as market prices advanced with the increased United Kingdom contract prices . . . The four firms, Canada Packers, Swift Canadian, Burns and Wilsil, held over two-thirds of the total cold storage stocks. The inventories of beef as of January 1, 1948, were at record levels: those of pork, while not a record, were relatively large."
The royal commission noted the three largest packing firms in Canada made a combined net profit of $4-3 million in the four months following the removal of price controls, compared with less than $1 million in the corresponding period the year before, and that a substantial portion of this increase was inventory profit.
May I, therefore, request that the commissioner investigate and report on:

(1)	the reasons for the 25 per cent decrease in hog prices between mid-July and the end of September of this year;
(2)	whether there was any agreement or arrangement, actual or tacit, among the major packing companies or any of them in respect of this decrease in hog prices;
(3)	the reasons why the decrease in the price of pork to the producers was not passed on to the consumer promptly and in like proportion;
(4)	whether there was any agreement or arrangement, actual or tacit, among the major packing companies or any of them in respect of the failure to decrease retail prices as indicated;
(5)	whether there is any agreement or arrangement, actual or tacit, among the major packing companies or any of them in maintaining wholesale meat prices to the retail trade in Canada as a whole or in any part thereof.
I received a reply to that letter on February 23, or three months and a week after I had written my letter. I received it just a week before the present session commenced. I am going to read part of what the commissioner stated and ask the permission of the house to have the whole letter placed on the record. The last part of the letter reads as follows:
In case you wish to bring this letter and the material attached to the attention of others I am enclosing several copies.
In other words, he wishes his reply to be given publicity. I want to comment on certain paragraphs in his letter. So that no one will think that I am doing so unfairly or taking anything out of its context, I would ask the permission of the house to have the letter printed in full so that all members will have an equal opportunity of seeing what is in it and so that it will be given the publicity for which the commissioner asks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Percy Ellis Wright: If it is agreed, then the letter will appear so that all members will see it.


Mr. Applewhaite:: On a question of privilege, because I think it is a question of the privileges of this house, may I say that I hope the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) will agree with me that this is not in any way a personal objection to him or to the document which he proposes to file in Hansard, but I would suggest that if we start opening the door this way sooner or later we will be producing in this house a congressional record which will contain any amount of documents, letters, newspaper articles and other things which I and others may be tempted to file because time will not allow us to read them. Therefore it is with regret in so far as my friend is concerned that I cannot consent.
The Address-Mr. Wright


Major James William Coldwell: Equally on a question of
privilege, if this is going to be done with regard to this communication which is from the combines investigation commissioner as such and deals with a complaint made on the floor of the house last November, then I say no other document of any description should be allowed to go on the record other than a document brought before the house by the minister. I say that because this document is the official reply to something that was stated in the house by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and I think that is good enough. I hate to do so but the moment any member of the house other than a minister asks to put anything on the record, and I am in my seat, I shall object to placing it on the record. In this case the document is in effect a public document.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, I have no alternative but to tell the hon. member that it cannot be done.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not going to press any
further for the placing of it on Hansard. 1 simply did so because the commissioner himself stated in his letter, "In case you wish to bring this letter and the material attached to the attention of others I am enclosing several copies." Therefore I do not think I was asking for anything out of the way when I asked that the letter be placed on the record.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, I am not going to read it. Permission has been refused by one member. He is perfectly justified in doing so if he feels that way about it, and I cannot have it included unless he is prepared to withdraw his objection. I certainly do not intend to read the letter. However, the letter shows quite clearly, and the commissioner goes to great lengths to prove, that the prices charged to the consumer for these pork products did drop; and that while that drop was delayed the benefit of the reduced prices to the producer eventually did reach the consumer. But at no point in the letter does the commissioner try to prove that those reductions were in the same ratio as the increases in the prices to the consumer when prices to the producer had increased. I hope no one will think my criticism is unfair because he cannot read the letter itself. If he wishes to do so he will find a copy in my office that he can read at any time. I say that nowhere in that letter does the commissioner try to prove that the drop in prices to the consumer
244	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Wright when the price to the producer faEs is proportionate to or as fast as the increased price to the consumer when the price is increased1 to the producer.
That is the meat of the matter. It is aE very well to say that the infallible rule of supply and demand controls prices. Eventually prices do increase as the demand increases and drop as the demand decreases; but the middleman in this country is able to hold back those advantages which should1 come to the consumer with a drop in the price to the producer, and is able to pass on quickly any increase in the price paid the producer; and it is by reason of this lag that profits are made in this country. Make no mistake about it; profits are being made, as was demonstrated before the price spreads committee when controls were taken off back in 1946. At that time it was demonstrated, as I have indicated in the letter that was sent to the commissioner, that a fortuitous gain of over $3 million was made by the packing plants of this country, by increasing the prices on meat they already had in storage, which they had bought from the farmers at the prices which obtained before the controls were lifted. The same condition applied last summer with regard to pork. Why did the price of pork drop in July? That happened because the bureau of statistics issued1 -a statement showing the number of sows that had been bred and the amount of pork that would probably come on the market in the fall. Did they wait until the pork came on the market? Oh, no; prices dropped right away, within a week after those figures were made public. But when the bureau of statistics issues statistics indicating that there is going to be a scarcity, do you think the market reacts immediately? Oh, no; it waits until the scarcity actuaEy occurs before it reacts.
These are things that should be looked into under the Combines Investigation Act, to determine whether the consumers and producers are being treated fairly by the people who distribute meat products in this country. Until the commissioner is prepared to act promptly in these matters he can expect criticism to continue in respect to what the producer receives for his product and what the consumer finally has to pay for it. These facts are well known and have been brought to the attention of the government and the combines investigation commissioner many times. Until these things; are investigated; until I have more evidence than is contained in the letter I wished to have appear in Hansard-and I am sure the hon. member who objected did no service to this house-I am not satisfied with the situation that exists today.

There is an emergency situation in this country because of the foot-and-mouth disease. Again we are going to see these violent fluctuations. One part of Canada wEl be paying more than it can afford for meat, while another part -where there is a surplus will have reduced prices. In the meantime those who control the speed with which price changes are reflected in lower prices to the consumer or higher prices to the producer will again reap a harvest unless the government is prepared to appoint a board or a controller to see that there is fair play; and surely in such an emergency the government should be prepared to act. That is all the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) is asking. He wants fair play to both the producer and the consumer, through the appointment of a board with power to see that somebody does not reap an unfair profit out of the disaster that has struck our livestock industry. It is a disaster. I think I am conservative when I say that the price of every beef and dairy animal in Canada has been reduced by at least $50 in the last month because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Who is going to reap the benefit of that? Certainly it is not the producer, and as far as prices are concerned it is not going to be the consumer unless this government has the courage to see that there is fair play in this matter.
I want to urge the necessity of appointing a board or controller at this time to see that justice is done, so that someone does not reap a completely unearned profit as a result of the disaster the foot-and-mouth disease has caused to our livestock industry. I am sure that is the wish of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I am sure it is the wish of the consumers of this country, and it should be the wish of every member of this house. I hope members on both the government and opposition sides will support this measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, surely the house would like to call it a day. Perhaps I might be permitted to adjourn the debate at this time.
On motion of Mr. Knowles the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: On Monday we will continue this debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Monday, March 10, 1952