1955-01-31

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. Mitchell (London).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that newspapers across Canada, and particularly the financial papers, are reporting that an application to the government has been made by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the guarantee of their bonds, will the Acting Prime Minister inform the house if such an application has been made and whether he has any report to give on the details of it?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of a question from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and in reply prepared an answer which I can give at this time.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited has made representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and to myself regarding problems associated with financing of the pipe line from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. These representations are now being studied by the Minister of Finance. No action is being or will be considered by the government until such time as the Minister of Finance is prepared to report to the cabinet in this regard.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which I sent him earlier in the day. Will the minister indicate with whom the authority rests to establish priority and directorship of dredging in the New Westminster harbour and on the
Fraser river as between the New Westminster harbour commission and the federal Department of Public Works?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The Department of Public Works is the authority for dredging in the Fraser river. There is close co-operation between our district engineers, the harbour board and the pilotage authorities. A yearly program of maintenance dredging is laid out, but if a particular or unforeseen need at any point is found by our engineers or is brought to their attention, steps are taken to remedy it at the first opportunity.



IMPORTATION OF LAMB PRODUCTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: In view of inquiries made of me over the week end, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the fact that New Zealand lamb products in considerable quantities are being brought into Canada at the present time?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was aware of the fact that lamb was being brought into Canada. I am not sure whether it is still continuing to come, but it has been coming for some time.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask a supplementary question, if I may. Has the suggestion been made to the minister that the importations be held in storage until say the middle of April or May so that they may not disrupt the market as much as many livestock men presume they will?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall look into the question. But so far as I am aware, lamb has been coming for some time and I have had no complaints.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask one further question, if I may. Is it a fact that a large boatload is coming in or is on the way at the present time? It is rumoured that a much larger quantity than usual is on the way.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not aware of the amount that is coming in at the present time, but it has been coming for some considerable time.
670	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OP FIRST PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question arising out of the critical shortage of purchasing power amongst western farmers. Can the minister inform the house what progress has been made in the making of prairie farm assistance payments and when it is expected that the first payment will be made?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I presume that, by the first payment, the hon. member means the 60 per cent, which we try to pay in December.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a statement of the payments made up to date. The total amount that has been awarded up to date is $3,548,000. As to the 60 per cent payment, the amount that has been paid out is $2,126,154. The delay in making payments this year as compared with other years is due to the fact that rust has caused most of the difficulty and it takes a much longer time to estimate what the payment ought to be. However, it will be put through just as rapidly as we can possibly do it.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the minister in connection with his reply with reference to Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments in order to remove any suggestion or feeling that is held to the contrary. Is there a differential being paid today between northern and southern Saskatchewan on the basis of a like number of bushels per acre, or is the same payment per acre being made in both areas based on the degree of crop failure?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same on a bushel per acre basis wherever payment is made, whether it is in any one of the three provinces or any part of any one of the three provinces.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that both the interprovincial farm union council and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have now requested floor prices under livestock and poultry, is it the intention of the minister to recommend legislation during the course of


this session to bring floor prices for these products into effect?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the request which is being made by the federation of agriculture. I have, of course, seen the request made by the interprovincial farm union council. That was made here some time ago. But in so far as I have seen reports in the press, the Canadian federation has asked for approximately what we are doing, with the further suggestion that we should have a formula upon which to base what is being paid. The question is:
... is it the intention of the minister to recommend legislation during the course of this session to bring floor prices for these products into effect?
The legislation we now have does make provision for floor prices being put into effect on any farm products excepting wheat if it is thought wise to do so.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dauphin wants to ask a supplementary question.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it the opinion of the minister that the present legislation provides for floor prices for producers?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It is not intended to provide floor prices for anyone else but the producers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, was it not understood that we would take order paper questions on Mondays?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No, I do not recall that it was. It was done last Monday but I do not recall that it was agreed that we would do it every Monday. However, if my hon. friends want to have questions and notices of motions for production of papers dealt with some time this week, we will arrange it.


Mr. Coldwell:: Wednesday?


Walter Edward Harris: Probably.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to

his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday night just before the house adjourned I referred to a paper written by some of the departmental heads in Ottawa in 1932. I was speaking from memory and I made a mistake of two years because the paper was written by Dr. Hugh Spence and R. K. Carnochan in 1930. The first part of the paper reads as follows:
This paper deals with an occurrence of radium ore near Wilberforce, Haliburton county, Ontario, upon which development work has recently been undertaken and which seems more likely to prove of commercial grade than any other deposit of radioactive minerals hitherto found in Canada. This occurrence is sometimes called the Richardson property, after Mr. W. M. Richardson, the discoverer, and will be so referred to in the present paper.
The ore is referred to in the paper as radium. At that time not much had been heard about uranium. Nothing was known about it so far as atomic energy was concerned. I want to bring it to the attention of the government that the ore was found some years ago. Then there is this passage in the paper:
The first discovery of radium ore in the Wilberforce district was made in 1922 by Mr. W. M. Richardson, a prospector and miner with Alaska and Yukon experience, who had come to Wilberforce in connection with the finds of molybdenite that had been made near that place ... In the course of prospecting the district, Mr. Richardson found a heavy, black mineral in surface outcrops of pegmatite at different points on the property, and having obtained a sample of . . . pitchblende, identified this mineral as uraninite. He, therefore, took up the mining rights on lots 4 and 5 in concession XXI, and on lot 4 in concession XXII, and proceeded to open up a number of small prospect pits and trenches.
A sample of uraninite sent by Mr. Richardson to Ledoux and Company, of New York, for assay, was reported by them to contain 58-35 per cent of uranium oxide .... equivalent to a radium content of 147 milligrams of radium per ton. Late in 1922, Dr. W. G. Miller visited the property and described it briefly in The Canadian Mining Journal of January 11th, 1924.
I mention that to show the house that what they were looking for at that time was not uranium. What was in their minds was radium which they wanted for medical purposes. Then I read the following from the paper:
In 1926, Dr. G. E. Richards, director of the department of radiology, Toronto General Hospital, had visited the property and secured samples of the ore and spring waters. With respect to the latter, Dr. Richards reported that three samples of water taken at various points all showed distinct radioactivity.
In 1927, Mr. M. D. Kennedy made a report on the property to the present company, who in 1929 commenced their first development work. Up to
The Address-Mr. Hodgson this time, attention had mainly been focussed on several outcrops of pegmatite that represented the points of original discovery of uraninite. . . . It is upon this lead that attention has since been centered and upon which work is proceeding at the present time. All of the three shipments of ore made to the mines branch in 1929, and upon which tests were run, came from this vein.
Since that time this paper was written, and late in the 1930's uranium was discovered there. As I said on Friday night, I do not think these people had very much encouragement from the government so far as uranium was concerned, but in spite of the government and the mines branch that property has been developed until today there are some 2,600 odd claims staked in a township and a half of that area. A lot of diamond drilling has been done and as soon as the snow goes in the spring much more diamond drilling will be started.
I might say that the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Eyre), who is interested in supplying diamond drills and equipment for hard rock drillers, took a stroll through that area last fall. Inasmuch as he has some experience in other mining areas, he certainly was not there to see me. At least, he did not call me. However, he did go over the area, and starting on the first day of April his company is supplying 7 different hard rock diamond drilling outfits in that area.
We have also had there some of the best geologists and engineers in the Dominion of Canada. Many of them come from the northern part of Ontario. There have also been many surveys made, maps prepared and so on. I hold in my hand a map of the district. You will see many other claims staked on it besides those in colour, but the coloured parts will give you some idea of the mines that are ready to operate. Some of them have already started and the rest are ready to begin in the early spring. I could not begin to give the names of all 2,600 companies but these are some with which I am familiar: Rare Earth, Tyson, Blue Rock, Homer Yellowknife, Faraday, Denfield, Croft Uranium, Centre Lake and Canadian Radium.
Quite a few of these mines are subsidiaries of other mines in Ontario. There is no doubt about it that the diamond drill holes now show that we have the goods in that area. Rare Earth has found three distinct rare minerals there, thorium, zirconium and hafnium. Columbium has also been found. These minerals are in quite large quantities and good percentages. That company is a private concern. Nobody is helping it, but it has 37 diamond drill holes below 1,000 feet and they have proved they

The Address-Mr. Hodgson have enough there in any one of these three claims to almost pay for operating the mine.
So far as uranium is concerned, there is a tremendous potential demand for uranium being created throughout the free world by the present research work on the applications of atomic energy both for military uses and industrial developments such as ship propulsion, electric power, etc. Present production goes exclusively to defence requirements and consumption figures are not available.
So far as other rare minerals are concerned, zirconium and hafnium, they are both newcomers to the industrial field and demand for both of them is expected to increase concurrently with the development of nuclear reactors. Zirconium has no substitute in the construction of nuclear reactor power plants on account of its physical properties, resistance to heat and corrosion, and low thermal neutron absorption cross-section. It is also very much in demand as a metal that can withstand the high temperatures in the combustion chambers of jet engines. According to the United States bureau of mines, as a structural metal, zirconium has tremendous potentialities.
Then we come to columbium. Columbium oxide also appears in appreciable quantity in the assay report. The most important use for columbium is the manufacture of high temperature steels and alloys used in jet aircraft engines. Other uses include electronic tubes, low voltage rectifiers, electrodes for welding stainless steel, and as an oxide in ceramics. The United States is entirely dependent on foreign supply for this metal, and over 97 per cent comes from eastern hemisphere sources, largely Africa.
I believe I am safe in saying, Mr. Speaker, that in Haliburton we have the makings of the greatest mining development that has ever occurred in Canada, as a result of the tremendous amount of uranium ore concentrates that have been found there as well as these rare metals. Whether or not these mining ventures have received very much encouragement from the atomic energy commission or the Department of Mines of this government, matters not. I am not going to argue about it. The people concerned seem to think they have had no encouragement whatever. If no consideration has been given to this company up to the moment I ask the minister, in all seriousness, to give some consideration to it because uranium cannot be mined without the approval of his department. This mineral has to be sold to the government according to the laws of


the land, and an export permit cannot be obtained without the approval of the Department of Trade and Commerce. In all sincerity I ask the minister to once more look over the situation. I am sure he will give it some consideration when he sees the assay reports from that area.
There is only one more thing about which I should like to say a word in this debate. When the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was speaking a few days ago, he linked the trips made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to Quebec to those made by Sir John A. Macdonald at the time confederation was under consideration. I believe everyone will agree with me that the meetings attended by Sir John A. Macdonald resulted in Canada becoming one of the greatest countries in the world. I do not see how one could liken those trips to the trips made by the Prime Minister, and especially the last trip the Prime Minister made in September when he made a sword rattling speech. The Prime Minister took a different attitude when he went down to deal with Mr. Duplessis on the tax situation. Much to his credit, he is trying to do an about-face now. He is trying to patch up some of the mistakes he made in September. I hope the government will call a provincial conference as soon as possible, so that we may have more unity in Canada in the future than we have had in the past.
(Translation):


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the speech from the throne, I feel highly gratified to share the opinion of those of my colleagues who have seen in this speech an important document, a harbinger of measures favourable to the stability and happiness of this country. It goes without saying that not everybody can attempt an analysis of the subject from the same point of view. Some see in this debate an opportunity for assailing the activities of the government of the country in order to promote the interests of their own party.
Such being the case, since the beginning of the debate, we have had occasion to hear the most surprising statements indeed. I was particularly struck by the description given of such an historic document as the speech from the throne by one hon. member who spoke of it as being a "desert of ideas in a flood of words". The hon. member felt justified in thus describing the speech made by His Excellency the Governor General on January 7 last.
Of course, it could not be given to all to possess to the same degree as the hon. member the art of striking out of a speech all

needless, superfluous words. For my part, I find in this document the outline of a concise doctrine that has been familiar to all of Canada for almost 20 years. Indeed, one only needs to reread the same speeches, made over the past 20 years, including that of 1955, to find in them the political philosophy which has made Canada one of the great countries of the world. I am happy to belong to the political party which has been the initiator of this philosophy of security and progress.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to concur in the splendid appeal made in this house by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robi-chaud) in favour of the bicentenary celebrations, which have started, in order to commemorate the deportation of the Acadians. I heartily endorse his invitation to all Canadians to join in those celebrations.
In order to further stress the character of these celebrations, I should like to quote briefly from a recent news item on the subject:
At first people might wonder that our friends in the maritimes should choose such a painful anniversary as an occasion for great rejoicings. On second thought, however, no occasion could be more proper. In the first place, this celebration has the great advantage to show all Canadians that there is no ill-feeling left among Acadians.
If they faithfully recall the past to honour the heroism of their forefathers they do not drift into sentimental memories. They prefer to study the present in the light of the future.
Acadians have faith in the future; they know from experience that they carry within themselves the necessary resources of courage, tenacity and clear vision that will promote their development.
WhUe they are proud of their religious and national beliefs, they are not at odds with the present. On the contrary, they are striving to achieve a significant position. Because of their devotion to their small Acadian motherland, theirs is an efficient contribution to the greatness of Canada as a whole.
(Text):
In a speech made during the last session, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the economy of my constituency revolves around three important industries, namely, farming, fishing and lumbering. I would like at this time to refer again to these subjects. Figures of the 1951 census indicate that at that time we had in Kent county 2,328 farms. It is therefore evident that much of the economy of the country depends upon agriculture.
Farming conditions for 1954 were only fair. Unusually wet weather hampered farming operations considerably, and farm returns were greatly affected. These conditions were additional factors hastening the trend toward the desertion of the farming profession. I have had farmers come to me who were abandoning farms on which they had brought 50433-43
The Address-Mr. Michaud up large families, and who were going out to seek ordinary, unskilled labouring jobs.
In further analysing the above statistics we find certain classifications in connection with the farms in Kent county. We see that out of 2,328 farms, 538 are occupied by parttime farmers. We see that 604 farmers have incomes of less than $250 and that 622 have incomes between $250 and $1,199. Then, there are 405 farms on which the incomes are between $1,200 and $2,499, and 100 farms with incomes between $2,500 and $3,749. There are 30 farms with incomes between $3,750 and $4,999; there are 21 farms with incomes between $5,000 and $7,499, and three farms with incomes between $10,000 and $15,000. On only one farm is the income over $20,000. In the light of these figures it is apparent that the greater number of farms in Kent county are in the low income bracket.
I had suggested last year that, because of the peculiar local economic conditions, the Department of Agriculture should conduct an economic survey to ascertain the possibility of improving present conditions. I still believe that survey to be essential, and I wish now to renew my request, hoping that it will receive from the department the most earnest consideration.
May I voice to the government the hope of the farming population in my constituency that the policy of supporting the price of butter will be maintained. The dairy industry is basic to farming in Kent county, and we would view with apprehension the possibility of discontinuing this policy. We feel it would have an unfavourable effect upon the economy of our rural communities.
I would also express concurrence in the remarks delivered on January 12 by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) with regard to the course followed by the Canadian farm loan board in our area. It would seem that this board has lacked on numerous occasions the flexibility required to fulfil its purpose. Too often loans which are really needed are refused because of a too-rigid system of assessment. More leniency therefore seems desirable in the application of an otherwise beneficial farm credit system.
I was pleased to learn in the speech from the throne that legislation is to be introduced to provide loans to fishermen similar to those provided farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Although the full extent of this proposed legislation is not yet known, I earnestly hope that following its enactment loans will be made available to lobster fishermen, such as are found along the eastern shores of New Brunswick. Lack of credit facilities is often a serious handicap to many of these fishermen. Capital is sometimes required to build a new boat, buy a new engine,
674	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michaud or provide new fishing gear, but it is not always available. The establishment of such a loans system would close the gap in the economic network of our fishing population.
The Department of Fisheries last year initiated programs which, I contend, have great value for our fishermen. These programs consisted of a series of lectures held in the fishing centres of Kent county by experts from the Department of Fisheries. I am pleased to be able to announce that the meetings at which these lectures were delivered were well attended and deeply appreciated. It would be advisable that these educational programs be maintained, for the benefit of our fishing communities.
Last year I indicated in the house the urgency of restoring the oyster industry in Kent county. A few years ago this was a flourishing industry, but it has now completely disappeared. The economic loss which resulted was seriously felt throughout the whole county.
I have here a report from the Department of Fisheries from which I should like to quote. This report applies to the Buctouche-Cocagne-Grande Digue area only. In 1929 there were 11,590 hundredweight of oysters landed, with a landed value of $33,821. Then for the next ten years oyster production remained at about the same level, but in 1939 a decline in production began to appear. The following table will show the weights of oyster landings, beginning in that year:
Oyster
Landings
(Hundredweight)
1939		 8,420
1940		 5.250
1941		 4,214
1946	 3,300
1952	 1.H6
1954	 nil
The industry suffered a similar decline in the Richibucto district.
I am aware of the excellent reputation enjoyed by Kent county oysters among connoisseurs. Their superior quality is not disputed. I am also aware of the initiative taken by the department to bring this oyster territory to its earlier state of productivity. Because of the economic importance of this industry to the area, I would urge that the efforts of the fisheries research board in this respect be fully maintained, and that a program aimed at the restoration of the industry be pursued with full vigour.
The lumber industry in Kent county is of major importance. Wood cuts are chiefly in pit props and pulpwood, which, for the greater part, are shipped to outside markets through Buctouche and Richibucto harbours. Some 42 boats, carrying approximately 53,000 cords,


were loaded at Richibucto, and 28 boats, carrying approximately 42,000 cords, were loaded at Buctouche, during last season. These totals do not include, of course, the amounts shipped by rail, or through ports outside the county, nor the long lumber operations of the county. These different aspects of the industry give us an estimation of its importance to the economy of Kent county. Farmers, settlers, truck owners, stevedores, in large numbers, depend upon this industry.
I had good reasons, therefore, to be deeply interested in the speech delivered in this house last week, by the hon. member from Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), on the alleged pricefixing methods practised in the lumber trade in his area. I have had many people in my constituency complain about the abnormal situation of falling prices for the pulpwood or pit prop cord, beside an increased cost of living. The local producers, for the last four or five years, were compelled to accept steadily decreasing prices for their wood; this year again, they will receive $1 less than last year; $9 a cord compared to $10 a cord last year. I submit that this is barely more than the value of the labour involved for cutting a cord of wood, and the stumpage value. Newsprint, on the other hand, during the same period, remained on the upgrade. I was further interested in the declaration made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that an investigation into this matter will be pursued. In view of those circumstances, this investigation should also be extended to the part of the country I represent.
I want to express my satisfaction with the amendments recently brought to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker. I know that this will be of great benefit in many instances. May I also express to the Department of Labour my hope of seeing the benefits of unemployment insurance extended to the fishermen of the country. This measure would prove of great assistance to many fishermen of my constituency.
In listening to the speech made in this house last week by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), I was delighted by his reference to a native son of New Brunswick who became prime minister of Great Britain. If New Brunswick feels proud of this distinguished son, we, in Kent county, feel doubly proud, because it was in this county, in the town of Rexton, that Bonar Law was born in 1858. He went to Scotland when still a boy. Today a cairn in the town of Rexton perpetuates the memory of a great man who, as a boy, lived in those quiet surroundings.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, when the speech from the throne was about to be read a little more than three weeks

ago, all Canadians listened with anxiety to what it might contain. Although some of us were pleased with some aspects of it, we were disappointed with others. For my part, I wish to say that it did contain several items which were pleasing to me, and it would be fair to say probably pleasing to most of the people in the maritime provinces. To begin with, it was noted that plans are under way to commence the building of a new ferry to connect Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia for the service which now exists between Wood Island and Caribou. It was also noted that a new ferry would come into operation this year between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. Notice was also taken of the fact that a new ferry service will be inaugurated between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbor, Maine. We are all pleased to see these improvements in the transportation set-up in the maritime provinces. They should react beneficially on our economy generally because, if the cost of transportation can be reduced, markets will become more readily available for the producers in that area. It was also noted that very shortly the Canso causeway joining the island of Cape Breton with the mainland of Nova Scotia would be completed. That is a remarkable engineering achievement. It is perhaps unique in this country. But it is a thing that carries with it not only a blessing but also some disadvantages that will cause some inconvenience to groups of people as economic readjustment will be necessary when this new type of more rapid transportation between Cape Breton and the mainland comes into use.
However, we in Prince Edward Island, in common with the people of Britain, Bermuda, Newfoundland and various other places, are conscious of the peculiar advantage we have in being able to say that we live on an island, because living on an island has definite advantages. Island people all over the world have been leaders in their fields, generally speaking.


Mr. Fulton:: Does that apply to St. Pierre?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, that applies even to St. Pierre and Miquelon.


Mr. Pearkes:: And Vancouver island.


John Angus MacLean: Therefore, we on Prince Edward Island are especially appreciative of the consternation that will rise in the breasts of the people of Cape Breton island when they wake up some morning and realize that they are physically as well as politically a part of Nova Scotia. Between the island of Cape Breton and the mainland there has been rather good-humoured competition that 50133-I3i
The Address-Mr. MacLean goes back a long way, to the time when Cape Breton was a separate colony. In that connection I should like to quote briefly a statement which will bear that out. This refers to the time when Cape Breton was a separate colony:
By the end of 1785 he found himself in difficulties,-
This refers to the then governor of Cape Breton island. I continue:
-there being an insufficient supply of provisions for the supply of the inhabitants during the winter, he applied to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, John Parr, for supplies, and was refused. DesBarres in reporting this to London says that this was because Parr "had an aversion to the measure of erecting Cape Breton, formerly included within the jurisdiction of his province into a separate government, and, together with some of the officers of his civil establishment and mercantile men long used to a monopoly of trade in Nova Scotia, seemed hurt by its dismemberment, expecting that their perquisites and exclusive profits >vould be reduced."
"Accordingly, in order to frustrate the measure, they depreciated the natural advantages of the island, discouraged the accession of settlers, intercepted the supplies for its support, and predicted that the infant colony would be broken up the first winter". There is little doubt that the government of Nova Scotia and the leading mercnants were greatly displeased at the establishment of Cape Breton as an independent colony, and they might well be expected to rejoice at DesBarres' embarrassments, which they would not help to ameliorate.
Perhaps that is typical of the way in which large political units tend to try to push smaller political units around if they have the opportunity to do so. Perhaps that accounts for the fact-I think it is a fact; I am told it is-that for many years it has been customary in the homes of Cape Breton island to say a long grace before meals. In doing this they usually recited at great length the benefits which the people in that island enjoyed, and then they ended up by praising the Deity and saying: We especially thank Thee for the strait of Canso that separates us from Nova Scotia. I think a twinge of regret will accompany the great sense of achievement and progress which the Cape Breton islanders will have when the new causeway comes into operation.
There has been a long historical connection between Cape Breton island and my own province. During the French regime Prince Edward Island came under the protection of the great fortress at Louisbourg. It was during that time that the capital of my province was founded. For a special reason I should like to ask your indulgence to permit me to quote from a book written by Professor Harvey, a native islander, who is now the archivist for Nova Scotia. I hope

The Address-Mr. MacLean I will not embarrass him by bringing this statement of his to your attention. He says:
During the spring and early summer of 1720 preparations were pushed on by the new company. Every encouragement was given the partners by the royal officials and at least three ships set out from Rochefort bearing the new colonists, the fishermen, and their supplies. On the last of the three ships to set out was the Sieur de Gotte-ville de Belleisle, lieutenant in the navy and chevalier of the order of St. Louis, who was given charge of the new establishment and destined to become commandant throughout the concession on March 9, 1721. The ships touched at Louisburg where they secured pilots and went forward on the great adventure. Although the island offered considerable choice as to harbors the respective merits of these were still unknown, which confirms the view that the various fishermen who had hitherto resorted there had made no charts and had been concerned only with suitable moorings for comparatively small craft. But the enterprise of Comte de Saint Pierre was much more pretentious and now a harbor was to be selected suitable for the capital of a colony and capable of admitting ships of heavy burden.
While in Louisburg de Gotteville had requested St. Ovide de Brouillan, governor of lie Royale, to allow Denys de La Ronde, an officer of much experience in the founding of such establishments, to accompany him to Isle Saint Jean. The request was granted, although de La Ronde had been expected to report at Quebec, and together they proceeded to the island. Here they found the other ships which had preceded them already well advanced with the work of unloading supplies, having been conducted by the pilots to Port La Joye. Together they chose the site on which were erected the first official buildings. Though later subject to much criticism because it was comparatively poor in natural resources, Port La Joye remained the capital throughout the entire French period, and under the English the city of Charlottetown was erected on the same harbor, not far from the original site so hastily selected by de Gotteville and de La Ronde. In this sense the capital dates from 1720, twenty-nine years before the founding of Halifax.
I bring that to your attention because this year the capital city of my province is celebrating its centennial. I do not want anyone to be confused by thinking that Charlottetown is only 100 years old. What it is actually celebrating is the centennial of its incorporation as a city. I think it could be forgiven for this anyway because Charlottetown is named after a lady and perhaps allowance should be made when there is a discrepancy of 130 years between its actual age and its nominal age.
This centennial celebration will be going on for the entire year and I should like to extend on behalf of the people of Charlottetown a very hearty welcome to all to come down and enjoy themselves this summer and also to steep themselves in some of the early history of the maritime provinces.
I noted with satisfaction a reference to the bringing into force of the pensions for the totally disabled. I think all hon. members of this house will agree that that is a beneficial thing. Reference is made also to an

amendment to the Blind Persons Act which would lower the age limit at which persons are entitled to receive pensions.
In this connection I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) something of which I know he is well aware. There is a gap between the date when family allowances are no longer paid and when a blind or completely disabled person becomes eligible for benefits under either act. A family which is burdened by having a completely disabled or blind child receives no benefit in connection with that child between the ages of 16 and 18 years. I do not understand why those two years have been left out in the social security program of the government which they usually boast of as providing security from the cradle to the grave. I am afraid that they have missed two years.
I notice with satisfaction that it is intended to introduce legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act in order to raise the ceiling on permissible income. This is something which is long overdue. With the permissible income as it was before, a hardship was imposed on those veterans who were able to earn small amounts of money on the side. I am pleased indeed to see that it is intended to improve that situation a little bit.
I am pleased also that legislation will be brought into being to make it possible for fishermen to borrow from the bank in the way that farmers are granted loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now want to turn to some of the things that were glaringly missing from the speech from the throne. Little reference was made either to trade or to unemployment. I want to refer first to the question of trade. The party from which this government gets its support, when talking out of the western side of its mouth, usually prates about free trade. We in the maritimes are quite conscious of the fact that it does not practise free trade. I am not criticising that fact on principle, but while this government talks in the west of free trade, I should like to recall to mind the fact that it does not practise it. When a Canadian is born in this year 1955, when he is first bathed he is washed in soap on which there is a 22J per cent tariff and a similar sales tax. Then he is wrapped in baby clothes on which there is a 25 per cent tariff. He is put in a bassinet on which there is a 15 per cent tariff; and in each case the sales tax is the same.


William Earl Rowe: Some free-trade baby!


John Angus MacLean: 
An hon. Member:: Secondhand at that.


John Angus MacLean: His grave is filled in with a shovel on which there is a 15 per cent tariff. Just so that I will not be in error here, I want to point out that there is a 20 per cent tariff on the shovel handle. Hence we should be quite conscious of the fact that we are not by any means living in a free-tariff or free-trade nation.
We in the maritimes do not, I think, contend for one moment that complete free trade would be practical because we in the maritimes have seen, from bitter experience, what happens when a small economic unit is thrown in, on a free trade basis, with a larger one. We have seen, following confederation, our small industries largely go bankrupt or quietly die or be bought up by their larger competitors in central Canada, to be carried on for a short while, for a few years, so that it would look good, and then disappear. A branch would be kept on and then suddenly some night this branch of the main factory or of the main head office which would be usually somewhere in Ontario or Quebec, would fold its tents like the Arabs and silently steal away overnight. This would not even have any publicity, but there just would not be a plant there any more. That is something that has happened time after time in the maritimes. There are in the maritimes certain towns that at the time of confederation had dozens of small industries whereas now their only industry is that of showing tourists around some historic site in the neighbourhood.
If those who speak of free trade tried to apply it to the North American continent, on the same basis, I am quite convinced they would find that the smaller economy of Canada, when tossed into the same economic market as that of the United States, would share the same fate. For instance, there would be no reason to carry on branch factories of automobile companies in Canada. The branch factories in Canada of the large automobile manufacturing companies in the United States would be closed down. It would not be economic to continue them; and so it would be with a great number of industries now existing in Canada simply because they have a measure of protection from their larger competitors south of the border.
The Address-Mr. MacLean
I point out that situation, Mr. Speaker, because I did not want you to have the impression that we in the rather cool, moist, lush, rolling maritimes were starting to see this free trade mirage which I am told is sometimes seen across the hot, level plains of the prairies. When we in the maritimes went into confederation we realized that the economy of our country as a whole would need to be protected, and we were willing to accept that fact. We were willing to buy automobiles, for instance, which have on them a sales tax and a tariff, made in central Canada. Of course there were no automobiles at the time of confederation.


An hon. Member:: Horses and buggies.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, horses and buggies; buggies at any rate. We were willing to accept that proposition but we were under the impression that it was going to be a twoway bargain. We were under the impression that we in turn would be protected with regard to the things we produced in the maritimes so that we would sell our products in the larger markets of central Canada.
I have searched through the tariffs of this country and I have failed to see any instance where an industry which is peculiar to the maritimes has any worth-while protection. For example, let us consider the situation with respect to coal. Anthracite coal comes into this country free. Bituminous coal has a tariff of 50 cents a ton, which is negligible. Gypsum-another product of the maritimes- in its crude form comes in free; there is no duty on it whatsoever. There is little protection for dairy products. Of course dairy products are not peculiar to the maritimes but they are extremely important to the economy of the maritimes. At the present time we see cheese from New Zealand coming in almost free.
I do not want to discuss this problem in terms of generalities. I want to give my attention for a few moments to one product in particular, namely potatoes. I realize that I run the danger of being accused by members from other parts of the country of just complaining because I am from the maritimes; and maybe that is understandable because the maritime members of parliament ever since confederation have been complaining about the deal which the maritimes got in confederation. I imagine it is a topic that is getting worn a bit threadbare, but I want to repeat it once more. In all sincerity I want to say that I believe that if the members of parliament from central Canada especially would make a practice of coming to Ottawa at least once a year via Whitehorse or Victoria or St. John's, Newfoundland, they would have a broader outlook with regard to the

The Address-Mr. Machean problems of this country which impinge especially on the economy of the extremities of the country.
I want to refer to the situation arising from the lack of protection for the Canadian potato market. I first want to point out that nine-tenths of the potatoes exported from Canada to other countries come from the maritimes. They come almost entirely from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Probably that is the explanation why the market is not protected. It is conceivable that, at a tariff conference taking place between Canada and the United States, Canada wanted a concession so far as the United States market was concerned for a manufactured product from some other part of Canada, and the Americans said, "Yes, fair enough, we will give you the concession if you will give us a concession on something else." Then someone said, "Surely, we will give you a concession on potatoes. They are only exported by the people down in the maritimes and if they complain about it we will just accuse them of grousing and let it go at that."
But this is the situation. From 1906 to 1919 there was a duty of 20 cents per bushel on potatoes coming into Canada from the United States. From 1923 to 1930 there was a duty of 35 cents a hundredweight on potatoes coming into Canada. From 1930 to 1935 the duty was 75 cents per hundredweight. Since 1935 to the present time potatoes of all kinds come into Canada from the United States duty free except for a period of six weeks, and I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the period when there is a duty. The six weeks are from June 15 to July 31 when it is pretty nearly impossible to find a Canadian potato offered for sale. At that time the duty on potatoes coming into Canada from the United States is 37J cents per hundredweight.
Let us look at the position with respect to United States tariffs on potatoes. The tariff on seed potatoes entering the United States is as follows:	On the first 2\ million bushels
of seed potatoes the tariff is 371 cents per hundredweight. On amounts imported above this quota the tariff is 75 cents per hundredweight. In the case of table stock potatoes the United States tariff is 37J cents per hundredweight on the first one million bushels imported and then the rate is doubled to 75 cents per hundredweight on all potatoes imported above the million bushel quota. However, the Americans protect their consumers by increasing the million bushel quota in poor crop years by the amount by which American production falls short of 350 million bushels.
I think it would be fair for us to examine what effect this tariff set-up is having on our
[Mr. MacLean.l


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) is prepared to dig the grave of the Conservative party he would obtain some concession from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the purchase of shovels. Some of the speeches I have heard since this debate commenced have left me cold, while others perhaps deserve some reply.
There was one speech that intrigued me, and that was delivered by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach). He seemed concerned about the fact that a supporter of the government appeared at the opening of a public building in the city of Taber, in the riding of Medicine Hat. It occurred to me to ask him the obvious question, how many times has the leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Prowse, opened a provincial public building in Alberta? I believe there would have been very few occasions on which he was so honoured. When one looks through the estimates that were tabled the other day, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there has been very little patronage or favouritism towards members of the Liberal party in the matter of buildings.
I note that about $4 million is being expended in Alberta, but I doubt if there are more than one or two buildings to be erected in Liberal ridings. The same situation prevails in British Columbia. The opposition ridings seem to have been given every consideration. I should like to tell the hon. member that the men on the treasury benches are responsible for raising the money to take care of these public works, and almost invariably the opposition, including the hon. member, oppose the raising of taxes.


Mr. Hansell:: Go on, spin it out.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member wishes further illustrations, I could accommodate him. There have been statements from some of the members of the C.C.F. party as well upon which I should like to dwell, but before I have finished I believe it will be discovered that my remarks will cause some considerable opposition from the other side, so I shall ignore the statements that have been made in condemnation of the government.

The Address-Mr. Byrne
I should like to speak about some of the things that do not appear in the speech from the throne. I do not consider them sufficiently important to make them the subject of a motion on going into supply which would require a vote of confidence. There are, however, three matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the government at this time. The first concerns the superannuated civil servants whose rate of superannuation was set at the time the superannuation act was adopted in 1924. These civil servants have since retired on a pension that is much below the amount required to ensure them a reasonable standard of living.
Most of the large industries that have had pension plans in effect for a similar length of time, or even less, have made concessions to their pensioned employees and are now granting supplementary payments based on the cost of living as well as other factors. The government has, of course, introduced the Old Age Security Act which provides $40 a month for everyone over 70. However, those who are receiving a pension and supplementary payments based on the cost of living receive the benefit of that payment, but the retired civil servant has been given no compensating consideration. I would urge the government to give this matter serious consideration.
My next point concerns a similar subject, and I refer to the old age pensioners who are living on the basic grant of $40 per month from the federal government. Of course, in the three western provinces those in need receive a supplementary payment. In British Columbia it amounts to $15; Alberta, $15; and Saskatchewan $2.50. I do not say this in condemnation of the government of Saskatchewan, nor do I think that it is particularly praiseworthy when applied to the other governments. It might be noted that the former coalition government in British Columbia was the first to institute such a program of supplementary allowances.
The senior citizens association in British Columbia includes not only those who are in receipt of old age pensions, or pensions from corporations, but also those who are interested in promoting the welfare of the senior citizens. From a convention held in Vancouver last fall there was circulated the suggestion that there should be some way to give further assistance to those who do not have any other means of sustenance. That horrible expression, "the means test" was again brought into the limelight at the convention. It may not be wise politically for me to suggest that there should be some way of determining the relative incomes of people between the ages of 65 and 69 and

after the age of 70, who are on means test pensions. It is pretty hard to tell people who are otherwise destitute that this is all they can receive while at the same time others are in receipt of fairly substantial incomes as well as the $40. When we ask for increased amounts for pensioners in need we now include all those affected, or about 800,000 people. Naturally this runs into a very large sum of money, no matter how small the increase may be.
I think we must face the fact however that there are people on whom the present situation works a very great hardship. I believe that in Newfoundland those who qualify under the means test receive $30 a month. While in western Canada persons may receive $55 a month, the difference in the ratio of the cost of living is such that perhaps those who are living in the western provinces are not as well off as those in Newfoundland.
The association in British Columbia has approached this question, and the Calgary branch of the old age pensioners society has written to all members of parliament. If I read their communication correctly it seems to indicate that they favour some way by which those who are in great need would be given further assistance.
The provinces have their responsibility, and any such program should be carried on in conjunction with them, leaving it to the local authorities to state who should receive further assistance.
The request has also been made that the age limit be reduced to 60 years. This would be highly desirable, of course, but it would add another 200,000 persons and bring the total to over a million. I am not prepared to go along with that suggestion at the moment, but I do believe that all pensions should have effect at the age of 65 years at which time most employees are being pensioned off, or retired without pension at this age.
I am not presenting a firm program. I am simply saying that, despite the fact that in the House of Commons any type of means test has been soundly condemned, and while it is highly desirable and gratifying that we should take this position, still there are people who are attempting to exist on $40 a month.
I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) is indicating that it is a means test. I do not see how it could be interpreted any other way than as a means test. And of course this is what was indicated by the senior citizens association of British Columbia.


Mr. Thalcher:: If that is what you said, I agree with you.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The senior citizens in British Columbia have said that for those in need something should be done, and certainly the inference is that help should be given to those who are destitute.


Mr. Martin:: I think my hon. friend would wish to make clear that he is of course in favour of the government's scheme of old age security on a non-means test basis- because the interruption has come from a quarter that holds another view.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Just the same view.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Because of the war, and the subsequent inflation, those who had set aside some savings, shall we say, or had small incomes, have seen those savings depreciate in value. This has now been supplemented to the extent of $40 and, for the moment, I believe we have gone far enough in this respect. Certainly that would be my position, if I am to be consistent. I make no suggestion that a change should be made in this regard; but I do say that inasmuch as we have a means test in some of the provinces, those who have not benefited from this legislation should be given further consideration.
The suggestion may be made that this is a retrograde step-and, if it is, I am sorry. I do feel however that there are some who are in great need and we should do something to study their plight.
I was about to quote from a letter sent by the Alberta old age pensioners society, Calgary branch, to each of us. It states:
We still place before you our goal of an adequate pension for those under the means test only, for those from sixty years of age. With present high prices, $40 monthly hardly keeps body and soul together. We believe the amount of pension should be increased to the really needy.
I have one other matter to discuss, and I warn hon. members opposite that this is something that has been on my mind several years, actually since becoming a member of this house. It is something to which I have given considerable study, although the way in which I express myself may belie that fact. It is entirely my own opinion, but I am substantiated by a very distinguished gentleman by the name of Chief Justice Sloan. Chief Justice Sloan was appointed to arbitrate the differences between the railway employees and the railway. I am sure this renowned judge is highly regarded in all parts of the house. I know he is highly regarded in British Columbia. Since he handed down his report, Chief Justice Sloan has been asked to head a royal commission investigating the forest industry in British Columbia. He is 50433-44
The Address-Mr. Byrne again acting to resolve one of the outstanding issues between railway employees and railway management.
If hon. members have not a copy of Chief Justice Sloan's award it is available to them. The whole tenor of his report is based on the fact that inequality has been caused by the maintenance of the Crowsnest freight rate agreement. Chief Justice Sloan recognized that in so far as the present grain rates assist the economy generally, the losses should be made up by the federal treasury rather than on the narrow basis that exists at the present time. He says that compared to comparable industries the railway employees lack a great deal in fringe benefits and that within reason the disparity should be removed. In the forthwith paragraph of his award he has this to say:
A major factor contributing to the present serious decline in rail revenue is the distortion and imbalance of the freight rate structure due to the direct and indirect but consequential effects of the Crowsnest pass rates covering grain and grain products.
He points out that the railways have found it necessary, because of their greatly decreased earnings, to lay off 20,000 men. I think that is not entirely the picture. No doubt their attempt to modernize and bring in dieseliza-tion has had some effects, but the over-all effect has been as follows, according to Chief Justice Sloan:
In 1940 net railway operating income for all Canadian railways (was) $74-1 million. In 1953 the same figure dropped to $55-9 million, a decrease of $18-2 million.
There was a 71-5 per cent increase in the freight traffic, but there was a revenue loss of 24 [DOT] 6 per cent. We all know that freight rates on other products, and certainly on consumer goods, particularly in British Columbia, have greatly increased. Our jobbers are paying greatly increased freight rates, yet, that is the picture. Chief Justice Sloan certainly had a point when he suggested that these losses should be made up from the general revenue of the country.
It might be interesting to note that in a recent statement Donald Gordon, chairman of the Canadian National Railways, said that 9 per cent of the freight traffic was handled by trucks in the last year, but they took in 25 per cent of the revenue. Therefore it is quite obvious that the railways are being required to carry the great bulk of the low rate goods, thereby suffering a loss.
It has been said to me since entering the house that there is one way to be assured of being elected, and that is never to vote against a grant and never vote for a tax bill. I believe there is one other way of being elected, and that is always be prepared to

The Address-Mr. Byrne condemn the railways. If you do that you will be assured of being elected. I would just as soon be right as to be elected. So far as the railways are concerned, I look upon them as I do any other industrial organization. They are made up of human beings, shareholders and employees. As Chief Justice Sloan has done, I am pointing out that the railroad workers have not enjoyed the same standard of living enjoyed by workers in other industries. He went to some particular pains to point out that this fixed rate was the main cause.
I think it goes a little further, in that the railroads have an additional handicap. They know that when they grant a wage increase they must ask for rate increases. They have to go to a board which is answerable to parliament, and certainly the political implications from all sides of the house are not just what hon. members would want them to face.
Be that as it may, I should like to run over the history of the Crowsnest agreement to show that it is not, as is commonly presumed, an agreement under which the railways are absolutely hidebound to maintain these rates. In doing this I am not presenting an argument to have the rates abolished. I am simply indicating that there should be some assistance from the treasury to make up what losses are incurred as a result.
It is all right for people to say that the railroads made this agreement, let them stick by it; that the railroads were subsidized when they were built across Canada; that they received land grants and millions of dollars. But the fact still remains that commodity rates do fluctuate on these lines and they must fluctuate, otherwise the railroads would be out of business. They are a very important part of our national economy and they must continue to operate. We should be ready to give them some consideration.
The historical background is that by agreement with the government of the time in 1897 a railroad was built between Lethbridge and Kootenay Landing. A subsidy of $11,000 a mile was paid, amounting to some $3,630,000, not a large amount. There is a fallacious argument currently being spread about that the Canadian Pacific obtained the great Sullivan mine as a result of their -agreement to build the Crowsnest pass railroad. But that is not so. Shares in the Sullivan mine were purchased with the funds that would have been otherwise used for expansion or for the payment to the shareholders of the railroad. It was not until about 1920, I believe, when the Canadian Pacific got into the mining business. From my point of view, and from the point of view of many, it was a good thing


that money was available at that time to develop this great industry of the east and west Kootenays.
At that time the company agreed to reduce rates on a great variety of articles moving eastward, articles such as farm implements, wire nails, fresh fruits and so on. Had this remained so, then perhaps we in British Columbia would not find our freight rates as high as they are today. Those rates were to be in perpetuity, but of course that was absolutely impossible.
The Canadian Pacific was of course the only railroad operating in the west at that time, and it agreed to lower the cost of shipping wheat to Port Arthur-Fort William by 3 per cent, so in reality the present rates are 3 per cent below what they were in 1897. Certainly in the face of rising costs this could not go on, and in July, 1919, the Railway Act was amended. The board of railway commissioners, as it was then known, was given the power to adjust rates when it was considered necessary. They did adjust rates. Grain was then part of their jurisdiction. Three years later, in June, 1922, a new act was passed and it was then that the rates on grain were set to conform with the Crowsnest agreement.
My time is short and I simply want to say that there is no use putting our heads in the sand and ignoring facts in order to justify something that is quite obviously incorrect. I am just asking the house to consider this proposal by Chief Justice Sloan. I realize that grain is an important factor in our national economy and that we must compete in world markets, but I fear that unless we do something like this to effectively reduce freight rates British Columbia will be almost excluded from the eastern markets. It is my opinion that the beneficiaries of this particularly low rate are the consumers of eastern Canada and consumers abroad.
In the few minutes that I have left I should like to compare these rates with rates in the United States and I shall take stations of about equal distances from the great lakes. The rate from Maple Creek to Fort William is 23 cents per hundredweight whereas the rate from Havre, Montana, to Duluth, which is within a few miles of the distance, is 73-4 cents a hundredweight. Not that this is part of my argument, but I think it should be remembered by some of the members from the prairie provinces when they compare the price of grain in Canada with the Chicago price. They should remember that they are not giving a true picture as to the relative prices. Those are just two shipping points, but similar

comparisons apply to westward movements. I do not say that the rates should be identical to those in operation in the United States, or that a subsidy should be based on these rates. I say that we should be prepared, from the federal treasury, to make up the losses so that the freight rates in British Columbia will not suffer, so that the commodity rates will not have to be measurably higher to make up for those losses and so that the employees of the railway companies may enjoy the same amenities of life as are enjoyed by those who are employed in other industries.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in disagreement with several points made by the last two hon. members who have spoken. For instance, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) this afternoon came out for a tariff on potatoes. From his constituency's viewpoint no doubt his arguments were reasonable, but I must tell him that we in western Canada can never get very sympathetic toward tariffs of any kind. As a matter of fact we think our present tariffs are too high. We should like to see them reduced. We feel that our cost of living is perhaps 25 per cent higher than it otherwise would be because of the tariff level. Thus while my friend the hon. member for Queens made an extremely interesting speech, I must say that I could not agree with that aspect of it.
As to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), I noted his remarks with regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement. This subject is extremely contentious out west but, by and large, regardless of politics, I think most westerners would oppose any change being made in the Crowsnest pass agreement. After all, it was an agreement. When the contract was signed between the railroad and the federal government, substantial concessions were given to the railroad, including not only the cash grants mentioned by my hon. friend but also land grants, natural resources and the like. For instance, today there are oil wells that the C.P.R. own and from which they are securing revenue, because of this particular agreement.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Not that one.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There is also to be considered the fact that today the C.P.R. is dieselizing. No doubt in the next year or two, they will be able to haul, with their diesel engines, about twice as many carloads of grain as they were hauling previously with the old steam engines. Thus I hope in the future the railroads will find that 50433-441
The Address-Mr. Thatcher their costs have been cut so substantially that they may be able to continue this agreement. Certainly before agreeing to any change I should like to see more tangible evidence produced by the railroads that they are operating under impossible circumstances.
This afternoon I should like to deal briefly with two specific subjects. On January 6 last, over the city of Moose Jaw, we had another near collision between an R.C.A.F. training plane and a Trans-Canada Air Lines plane. On January 10-I was not in the house at the time-the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) in answer to a question said he felt that reports of the incident had been greatly exaggerated. He went on to intimate, as I understand it, that he deemed our present air safety regulations to be fairly satisfactory. I feel that I must take exception to such a view, Mr. Speaker, and there are several facts I should like to lay before hon. members.
The house will recall that last spring the most terrible air tragedy in Canadian history took place over the city of Moose Jaw. The planes involved were precisely the same two types that were involved in the incident on January 6. Despite the fact that about 14 such incidents have been reported since the fatal crash a year ago, the minister still feels that the air regulations are satisfactory. It seems to me, however, that they could and should be improved.
As to the last incident, I notice that the view of newspaper editorials, as well as the official view, seems to be that the R.C.A.F. was largely responsible. The T.C.A. people particularly seem to take such an attitude, including the captain of the ship which was involved. Perhaps the R.C.A.F. was partly to blame. But personally I cannot help feeling that Trans-Canada Air Lines is not going to ensure the safety of its passengers over the Moose Jaw area, or over any other training area, simply by blaming the R.C.A.F. Certainly it cannot do so at least until the company itself has taken every possible precaution.
I should like to say this afternoon that in my opinion Trans-Canada Air Lines and the officials of the Department of Transport have been lax in taking certain elementary safety precautions. I admit quite frankly that in these matters I am a layman, but I have discussed them with R.C.A.F. officials in the Moose Jaw area. As a result of those discussions I have several proposals that I should like to give to the minister for his examination and consideration. If they are not feasible he will perhaps tell me why they are not.

The Address-Mr. Thatcher
In the first place I fail to understand why Trans-Canada Air Lines planes, when approaching the Moose Jaw area where there are sometimes dozens of military planes in the air at the same time, do not notify the control tower. If they would notify the R.C.A.F. control tower, the military planes could immediately be alerted. When the recent near-crash took place on January 6, the T.C.A. plane was flying four and a half hours late. As one R.C.A.F. official to whom I was speaking put it, "As far as we knew, that plane was somewhere over Vancouver". How can Trans-Canada Air Lines-whose primary consideration I know is the safety of its passengers-neglect to give such notification?
In the city of Moose Jaw for two and a half years Canadian Pacific Air Lines flight 61 has actually used the same airport as the R.C.A.F. When a C.P.A. plane approaches the airport, the control tower is notified. Immediately all military planes go south or north; they clear the air and they clear the runways. This system has worked out so well that since the airport was founded at Moose Jaw there has not been a single complaint from any C.P.A. pilot. I know that R.C.A.F. officials are willing-indeed anxious-to have a similar type of arrangement with Trans-Canada Air Lines. I therefore respectfully suggest to the minister that our safety regulations should be amended to require that Trans-Canada Air Lines pilots coming into a military training area notify the military control tower. That procedure is particularly necessary if the flight is delayed.
A second suggestion which has been put forward to me, and which seems sensible, is that Trans-Canada Air Lines planes, which normally travel at an altitude of about 6,000 feet, should go up to 8,000 or 9,000 feet when over a training area. I am given to understand that Harvard planes, or planes of that type, ordinarily do not fly at such a height. If this suggestion were adopted I think the possibility of a crash would be greatly lessened.
I would make a third suggestion, even though some of the authorities may not agree with it. On night flights some of the military authorities tell me it would be much safer if Trans-Canada Air Lines had more lights on the exterior of their planes. The blinker lights are sometimes a little hard to see, particularly if the weather is stormy.
Trans-Canada Air Lines is a wonderful company. However we are obliged to train NATO pilots and, whether we like it or not, I suppose we shall be obliged to continue to train pilots in the years ahead. While no regulations can be airtight, it seems to me
fMr. Thatcher.]
that someone should tell Trans-Canada Air Lines that we expect their pilots to do more than just set their course and then fly in a straight line. Until that something more is done I do not feel that Trans-Canada Air Lines are taking all possible safety precautions. I think if these steps were taken, it would increase the safety of air travel.
The second matter I should like to discuss this afternoon has to do with the announcement made last Thursday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the effect that the government is now prepared to sell butter to hospitals and other institutions, up to 20 million pounds I believe, at 21 cents per pound less than cost. I take it that this action could mean that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) may have to find about $4-2 million, if the whole quantity is sold. In many ways I think the Minister of Agriculture is to be commended for such an ingenious scheme. After all, butter is a perishable product and we cannot keep it indefinitely.
I notice that the Americans have been trying to dispose of their surplus by giving it away to foreign countries at cut-rate prices. I like the minister's proposal better. In this manner Canadians will get the benefit of the subsidy, particularly institutions which need it. At the same time I feel that this emergency step, which after all will be quite costly to the Canadian taxpayers, should cause us to re-examine our price support program for butter. I know that one hon. member after another taking part in this debate has urged the government to keep the present floor price on butter. I think the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud) made such a plea this afternoon. I also know that most members of the group to which I belong favour the government policy.
I wish I could be convinced in my own mind, Mr. Speaker, that the present floor price of 58 cents is a good thing for the producer. I may be wrong but, speaking only for myself, I fear that the floor price of 58 cents, which was originally introduced in good faith to help the producers, is not actually having that result. I ask hon. members to look at the facts for a moment. For the past several years our population has been growing by more than 400,000 people per year, but despite that fact the consumption of butter has been going down. In the same period of time the consumption of oleomargarine and other substitutes for butter has been going up by leaps and bounds. In other words, as I see the

The Address-Mr. MacEachen
problem the dairy producer is gradually being squeezed out of the domestic market.
What about our export market? Our export market for butter seems to have completely disappeared. I suppose the main reason is that the Canadian price is about one-third above the world price. I understand that New Zealand is laying down butter in Great Britain at approximately 40 cents a pound. I also understand that the Americans are considering dumping their surplus on the world market. Of course if they do that the world price will go down even further. To sum up the present situation, it seems to me that by virtue of our floor price the Canadian butter producer (a) has already been priced out of the export market and (b) is now being gradually squeezed out of the domestic market.
I fully realize that the dairy industry is very important. I think it employs about 17 per cent of our working people. I also realize that any sharp drop in the floor price of butter at this time would cause hardship. Yet the fact remains that the government's artificially supported price is today discouraging butter consumption at a time when we have a large surplus, and at the same time is encouraging the use of substitutes.
What should be done? The present government program has been quite costly to the taxpayer. I would not object to that if the dairy producer were actually being helped. Under these circumstances I think it would be a good thing, because I believe in reasonable support prices for farm products. But, as I see it, giving away butter to foreign countries or giving it away to hospitals and institutions can only be justified as an emergent, temporary solution to a difficult problem.
I think our dairy producers and the government simply must face certain hard economic facts in the country today. If our producers are to regain their market for butter, I do not see how it can be done other than by a reduction in price. I point out that last year President Eisenhower reduced the American butter floor price by a few cents, yet consumption of butter increased almost immediately by 7 per cent. As I say, speaking only personally, I believe that if a similar step were taken in Canada it would have the same result.
I wish to reiterate that I believe in reasonable floor prices for agricultural products. I believe that such floor prices are necessary for a stabilized agricultural economy. But where butter is concerned, the existence of substitutes has completely complicated the picture. I favour the retention of a sensible
floor price for butter; but I believe if butter is to compete, the level of that floor price must be reduced in the not too distant future.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to associate myself with those speakers who preceded me in this debate in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Car-rick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The contents of the throne speech have been fully discussed, and it is not my intention to repeat the deserved tributes paid to the measures it proposes for the consideration of the house. I derived satisfaction from the features of the proposed legislation which have as their object the strengthening of those safeguards against insecurity experienced by citizens of this country. Those of my constituents who make their living in the fishing industry will be gratified at the most welcome announcement that a new system is proposed for the improvement of the loan facilities available to fishermen.
Attention has been focused in the course of this debate on the impressive growth in the Canadian economy in the past decade. This growth has been reflected in a growing labour force, in an increased willingness to invest and, indeed, in an expanding volume of international trade and other signs of economic advance. Canada has a dynamic and expanding economy, and we all agree that continuous growth is essential not only to maintain the present standards of living but to provide for higher levels of income and employment opportunities for the Canadian people.
But it is also clear that an economy of growth is an economy of change; change through the appearance of new products which take the market away from older products, the discovery of new and more economic processes, the development of new resources and the putting into production of new inventions. This type of change has been termed in a broad sense technological development. But while technological change or development promotes the economic growth of certain industries, it does not occur without convulsive repercussions on other industries which must attempt, sometimes unsuccessfully, to meet new threats to their existence. Workers find their former skills no longer useful, and industries find their products no longer in demand. A dynamic economy will generally exhibit, simultaneously with rapid growth in certain sections, rapid and painful declines in other sections of the economy.
It should be the object of all interested in human welfare to attach greater importance to the undesirable effects of technological

The Address-Mr. MacEachen change. We should try to consider the most desirable methods to use to overcome the painful readjustments, and if possible to incorporate such measures into social and economic policy. Unless such efforts are undertaken, certain groups will be called upon to shoulder the chief burden of progress which is of benefit to the community as a whole.
As a member from Nova Scotia I wish to take notice of two cases where technological change, in a general way, is placing strains, and may place further strains, on groups and communities. The report of the dominion coal board, recently tabled in this house, painted a very disheartening picture of the Canadian branch of that industry. Members of the coal board expressed their concern in several passages of that report. One quotation, however, will be sufficient to illustrate the awareness of the members of the board of the present stress on the coal industry. The board states:
To all concerned or Interested in Canadian coal mining it has become forcibly evident that the Industry is presently facing conditions which threaten the very basis of its existence.
Those conditions threatening the very basis of its existence, in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, can be briefly summarized. The first of these threatening conditions is the rapid rise in the pithead cost of mining coal in Nova Scotia. This rise is very disturbing. It amounts to $2.25 per net ton since 1949 for the major producer. Increasing production costs are, in my judgment, the principal problem to be faced in reaching proper stability in this industry.
It will be recalled that following an investigation into the coal industry conducted by the federal government, the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act was adopted by this parliament. It was the purpose of this legislation to reduce production costs to the industry through the provision of loans for mechanization purposes. Much confidence was placed in this program as a means of permanent rehabilitation of the coal industry. Not only have the results of this program been disappointing but the chief operator in Nova Scotia, Dosco, has expressed doubt as to whether this program should be continued in view of deteriorating market prospects.
If mechanization, the installation of machinery, cannot be expected to lower production costs in the time and at the rate required, then an acceptable alternative must be found. The industry depends for its future on arresting the trend toward higher costs, and if possible effecting substantial reductions in present production costs. Otherwise coal will be unable to meet the competition

of fuel substitutes, and will be clearly unable to improve its market outlook. It is to these acceptable alternatives, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to direct a few remarks.
The predominant characteristic of Canadian coal mining is that the labour bill makes up the major part of the total production cost. At the moment the wage bill or, if you wish, the income to the worker is such that about 53 cents of every dollar spent on coal production goes to the working force. If a wider definition is taken of the wage bill, then 60 cents of each dollar goes to the working force.
I am not suggesting that wages in this industry are too great; far from it. This fact, however, namely the proportion of labour cost to total production cost, is suggestive of a solution. This means that the working force in the coal mines, if properly organized and activated, could effect substantial reductions in total cost through their ability to control the wage bill which is such a large share of the total operating costs.
I am convinced that if coal miners were given an opportunity to influence production decisions, improvement would definitely result. The miners and their families are those most vitally concerned with the welfare of this industry. Seldom, however, is any thought given to the best method of harnessing this great human resource for the rehabilitation of the industry. I suggest that the dominion coal board, management and trade unions could examine with profit those instances, of which there are now a growing number, where this approach has brought about the kind of atmosphere that is conducive to improving production efficiency.
Turning now to the demand side of the industry, there are a number of hostile factors in operation. First, the United States coal industry, our historical competitor, is succeeding in bringing down production costs. Second, there is the competition afforded by residual oil and natural gas. Finally, there is the dieselization of the Canadian National Railways which, according to the dominion coal board, will have reduced this market for Nova Scotia coal by 600,000 tons in a period of four years, and will have dissipated it completely in a short period thereafter. This policy, undertaken in my opinion without careful assessment of its effects on the Nova Scotia economy, and without satisfying the public fully as to the source of fuel supplies in the event of war, will take away a large number of jobs in the coal mines when it reaches its culmination.
It may be that the future will vindicate the type of industrial statesmanship that has unremittingly pursued this policy in order

to effect internal business economies. 1 am sure, however, that the coal miners of Nova Scotia and the communities dependent upon this industry are also correct in their claim that this program should have been undertaken more gradually. If it must be regarded as an inevitable policy, it should have been undertaken more gradually and not at a time when the industry was meeting adversity from several other directions. Here is a plain case where a technological change is imposing a burden on one sector of the economy, though it is to be sincerely hoped that the over-all effects will be thoroughly beneficial.
Faced with rising pithead costs on the supply side, the industry is meeting this stiff competition on the demand side for the reasons I have outlined, and all of them are attributable to the technological change occurring in our dynamic economy. While it is possible to separate the supply and demand side of this industry for the purpose of analysis, both features are closely interrelated if only for the reason that the chief determinant of the ability of the industry to compete successfully is this very important factor of cost of production.
Very telling evidence of the rapid changes that have overtaken the coal industry is the fact that the royal commission which examined this industry so exhaustively some years ago did not foresee the new technological and economic developments. The dominion coal board takes notice of this situation by the following comment:
However, new economic and technological development began to affect adversely the situation during 1952. It became evident that the Canadian coal industry was faced with problems which could not have been foreseen by the royal commission.
If new directives and new policy are to be shaped to meet new conditions-and I am not overlooking the important contribution the dominion coal board can make-then it might be useful to consider a new investigation of this industry, taking into account developments which began to become pronounced in the past two or three years. The only reassuring feature is that at the end of 10 years, so the experts claim, the fuel requirements of Canada can only be satisfied through increasing dependence on coal as a source of supply.
The interim period, from the present to that time of greater fuel requirements, will continue to be most difficult for this industry and the persons dependent upon it for a livelihood. The measures of government now in effect-the subvention policy and the
The Address-Mr. MacEachen Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act- may require strengthening to aid the industry over this period.
I now turn to another subject which is also in the category of change, in this case brought about to improve transportation facilities in Nova Scotia. This improvement was noted in the speech from the throne by the statement:
Since you last met Cape Breton island has been linked with the mainland by the new causeway which will be ready for service as soon as the ship canal has been bridged.
I am sure my constituents in Cape Breton island would have been more pleased if His Excellency had chosen to say:
Since you last met the mainland has been linked with Cape Breton island by the new causeway.
The completion of this project marks another step in the improvement of transportation facilities in the province of Nova Scotia. Though on official opening day its chief promoter in Nova Scotia, the late Premier Macdonald, will not be present to lead his 100 pipers into the county of Inverness, which was his birthplace and mine, there will be real satisfaction in the province as a whole to see his dream come true.
However, this new advance will affect detrimentally the three communities of Point Tupper, Port Hawkesbury and Mulgrave, contiguous to the causeway area. The chief source of employment in these communities at present is the rail and highway ferries operated by the Canadian National Railways and the provincial government from Cape Breton to the mainland. When these ferries are eliminated jobs will be lost, and unless quick action is taken a fatal threat will exist to the future of these communities. As the day approaches for the cessation of operation of these ferries, there is growing apprehension among the people concerned.
I do not believe that it was the intention of this government nor the intention of the government of Nova Scotia, when this project was inaugurated, that the citizens of these communities should bear the chief burden of an advance that will bring great benefit to the people as a whole. I believe further that when the action of any government is such that it threatens the jobs of any group of citizens, there is automatically created for that government an obligation and a responsibility toward those adversely affected.
I take note that the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway project will cause property damage or property loss, and I understand that it will be the desire to compensate for such loss. In our type of society job rights are as important as property

The Address-Mr. Montgomery rights, and on behalf of my constituents in the Canso area I must urge upon this house and the government the need for action.
However, the impression should not be left that the citizens in these areas have been reluctant to face up to the challenge presented by this problem. Some time ago the residents of the four counties affected organized themselves into the Antigonish-Guys-borough-Inverness-Riehmond development association and have undertaken a study and investigation of what industry would best replace the jobs now threatened.
The most promising project now under consideration is the establishment of a paper mill. At present I understand that several firms are interested, and the fruition of this idea depends upon the availability of wood supply and electric power. The forest inventory undertaken jointly by the federal and provincial governments is now nearing completion, and it is to be hoped that its findings will be favourable for this area. Such an industry would solve in large measure the problem of these communities. It would provide stability for the agricultural industry of the adjoining counties, and would usher in a new era of forest conservation.
I had the opportunity just recently to discuss this problem with the premier of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), and on previous occasions with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). I think it fair to say that all these hon. gentlemen expressed a real concern over this problem, and if I raise the matter again tonight it is because it is a matter of urgency where government responsibility must be recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I began these remarks by saying that the growth of our economy through technological development is necessary to maintain income and employment in Canada. Our search for further economic growth should proceed hand in hand with a full consciousness of the needs of those communities that will be affected adversely by developments that are in the general interest.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would draw attention to the fact that some hon. members have taken on new responsibilities and assumed heavier tasks. I extend my congratulations to them and express the hope that they may be blessed with good health and divine guidance in the performance of their high office.
May I extend my congratulations to those hon. members who sit in the House of Commons for the first time. I trust they will enjoy their labours in parliament and their association with other hon. members. I would


extend congratulations, too, to the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) upon the excellent job he is doing.
While the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud) is not in his seat, I would congratulate him upon his remarks this afternoon, because in them he set out clearly the agricultural picture in his constituency. I assure him that the picture he painted with respect to the county of Kent is one that could be painted for the whole of New Brunswick. I would stand behind him and support him in the advice he has given the government, particularly when he says that the Department of Agriculture should review why the agricultural economy of New Brunswick is at such a low ebb.
I would also like to back up the hon. member in what he said concerning the farm loan board, and that applies also to what the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) said a few days ago; that when our farmers run into difficulties such as we have had in the past year, that just seems to be the time the farm loan board is not at hand, and the farmers cannot meet the regulations. In that connection the regulations concerning the farm loan board should be reviewed.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the speech from the throne did not fill me with a great deal of enthusiasm. I did not detect anything in it that would be a shot in the arm for our agricultural industry, which seems to be in such a disheartening condition. I did not see any change in policy by which the declining incomes of our agricultural workers are to get any relief. There was encouragement, of course, in the speech from the throne, which I was glad to see, for certain groups and I shall refer to some of them. For instance, I fully support the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and I hope they will meet the requests of the various members who have spoken in this house in the past, and of the Canadian Legion. The same remarks apply to the proposed amendments to the Blind Persons Act.
Another important piece of legislation was mentioned, namely the amendments to the Railway Act concerning the elimination of level crossings. I trust that these amendments, when they come down, will be broad enough to include underpasses, because there are many such in the country. I have some in my constituency, and there are several in New Brunswick, that are dangerous when one considers the number of vehicles and the amount of traffic on the roads. I hope these amendments will include underpasses as well as level crossings.
There are other items that I do not propose to take time to mention. However, in passing

I wish to say a word concerning unemployment. It is not a big problem in my constituency. The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which were passed recently will be helpful, and we are thankful for them. But I refer to a certain group of people, labourers, in my constituency and in other constituencies in New Brunswick, who are now unemployed and for whom no provision is made. When he spoke the other evening the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Hodgson) referred to this group.
I refer to that labouring group who depend upon farmers in the summer and who cut pulpwood and wood by the cord in winter. They do not seem to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Through no fault of their own they find themselves out of work, and there is no place to which they can apply for relief except directly to the municipality. I can assure you that the rural municipalities are not adequately equipped, nor are they in any financial position, to handle this problem satisfactorily.
Rural municipalities that depend upon agriculture are facing a gloomy year. Costs of production have not declined, but the incomes of those groups have been declining, and in addition to the normal trend in the decline of prices, owing to the excessive rain we had in New Brunswick last year a great deal of the crop that was planted last spring has never been harvested. That applies to hay, grain and potatoes, and a large percentage of the crop that was harvested was below average.
Therefore our farmers are not too happy about their position. This is naturally reflected in the financial position of the rural municipalities. All you have to do is read the papers and you will see that the financial reports of those municipalities at the year end invariably showed increased bank loans, increased tax delinquent lists, and larger budgets to take care of health, education, hospitalization and relief.
The labouring group to which I referred gets no assistance from the federal treasury. There is no way at the present time for the municipality to be reimbursed from the federal treasury. Judging from various speeches that have been made in this house we can all agree that unemployment is chiefly and primarily the responsibility of this federal government. But here is a group who are discriminated against, if you wish to put it that way. It does sound like a harsh word, but they make their living by labour. They do not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but they do get hungry when they get out of work. They need help, and they have to go to the parish and the municipality
The Address-Mr. Montgomery has to levy taxes directly on the people, which in rural agriculture areas are not easy to pay.
Some method should be worked out between the Department of Labour and the provinces so the municipalities, especially the rural municipalities, could be reimbursed for this type of relief. I just mention that casually because, while it is not a large problem in my constituency, there are quite a large number of people unemployed for whom there is no statistical record, and no record of which this house or the country generally has any knowledge.
I should like to pass on to another matter concerning the farmers. I do not think I am using harsh words when I say that the farmers in general are not getting their share of the producer's dollar, or of the consumer's dollar, whichever way you wish to examine the situation. A good many of them do not hesitate to say they feel that this government's trade policies are neglectful of their needs.
Many products have been mentioned, and I have a favourite one, too, which is potatoes. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) covered that ground very well; therefore I am going to curtail my remarks about potatoes. However, I do wish to say that I concur in what he said because I know he spoke in the interests of the potato farmers and agriculture in general down east. The potato farmers in the maritimes feel that they are in unfair competition with their United States neighbours.
I would like to go one step further than the hon. member went. I will give the house an example of just how unfairly the Canadian potato farmer is being treated under our present trade policy, in comparison with his United States neighbour. Within the last few days potatoes have been selling in Montreal for $2.60 per hundredweight. The American takes that $2.60, and because the Canadian dollar is at a premium it is really worth $2.67 to him. As the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) has explained to the house, it costs the United States potato grower nothing extra to produce potatoes for the Montreal market, but he receives 7 cents per hundredweight more than the Canadian farmer.
That may not seem much, but this is how it works out. It means an extra 4-2 cents on every bushel of potatoes. There are two different sizes of cars used to ship potatoes, one taking 700 bushels and the other about 550 bushels. In the case of the larger car it means $30 per carload which the United States farmer can take out of the Montreal market as a premium over and above what the Canadian potato producer receives.



S90 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Montgomery
I ask hon. members of this house if such a policy is fair to our Canadian farmers. By that type of policy the United States farmer is receiving protection on the Canadian market. We cannot expect the Canadian farmer to compete under those circumstances. I ask in all seriousness, as did the hon. member for Queens, that when trade agreements are being considered the eastern farmer and the potato farmer should not be forgotten. We do grow the best potatoes in Canada down there.
I am going to pass on to another subject, which concerns the obligation of the federal government to assist provincial governments in the development of natural resources. In speaking the other day the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) made out a strong case for assistance to New Brunswick in the matter of power. There is no need for me to review the case he made out concerning the immediate need of having cheap power available in New Brunswick in order that the people of our province may reap the greatest benefit from the development of our recently discovered base metal bodies, which are among the greatest on the continent.
Speaking in this chamber a little over a year ago I tried to impress upon this government the urgent need of having power available in New Brunswick at a lower cost. This province is already burdened with a debt which is beyond our ability to pay. What I said on that occasion still stands, except that I can now add the encouraging fact that surveys in my constituency, to which I referred, have shown that we have one of the most important manganese ore bodies in Canada or the United States. The latest information is that within the next 15 or 20 months a concentrate mill will be ready to go to work. They are going to develop that mine.
I am not speaking now about my own constituency, as this is a matter which cannot be confined to any particular area. It is our desire in New Brunswick, and I think I can fairly say that this applies to the maritime provinces, that we get the most out of what we have in the way of raw materials. It is our belief in New Brunswick that great advantage will be derived from these ore bodies if power is made available at a reasonable cost. If such power is available there is a possibility of a large smelter being erected in the Bathurst area. I am sorry the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Mc-William) is not here, as I think he would back me up in this. If that smelter is established it is going to attract other industries such as producers of fertilizers, ammonium products, sulphur phosphates, potash products and

others. But the one thing that is needed more than anything else is power. We need assistance in order to be able to develop our natural resources.
I should just like to add that any national policy of assistance in the development of natural resources should permit a province to develop those resources which are the most beneficial. The only large power potential in New Brunswick is in the Saint John river basin. Although we hope there will be others in a few years, at present nothing else has been surveyed. The most important site there is the Beechwood site.
The most important item in connection with the development of this site is the cost, because that is what will determine the price to the consumer. I think it can be said that New Brunswick has lagged behind in industrial growth. We were one of the original partners of confederation. Without New Brunswick and the leading part played by the outstanding public men of that day there might never have been confederation. Whether it was right or whether it was wrong is not the question; the fact is that this original partner has not fared too well as a result of confederation. As a representative from that loyal and grand old province I feel that I need make no apologies when I come before this federal government and plead for help.
I am not asking for a handout on behalf of New Brunswick. Assistance does not necessarily mean a grant. But I would like the house to consider what central governments have done for other provinces during past years and what the present government is doing today for other parts of Canada. In the light of that, a grant toward capital expenditure would be nothing less than fair.
Especially is this evident from a survey or a perusal of the projects in which this government has helped other provinces, as enumerated by my friend the hon. member for Royal the other day. Others can be added. There was the St. Mary's dam. There was the large write-off to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in the agreement writing down their debts in 1947. There was the assistance given to the railroads of this country to open up mining areas. There is also the big expenditure toward the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, which was also mentioned by my hon. friend. Indirectly, if not directly, this assistance has helped to develop the resources of those provinces. It seems to me there is all sorts of precedent for it.
I agree, of course, with what the hon. member said the other day. I am not objecting, and we in New Brunswick do not object,

The Address-Mr. Montgomery
to the people in these other provinces getting this help because we can see that, bygetting that help, they have become better; the provinces have become bigger; they have grown faster; their industrial life is now of a higher standard. All we say is, give us some aid in the same way you gave them aid.
As I said a few moments ago, assistance may be given in various ways. If assistance is given to a province so it can develop its natural resources, it becomes a better member of the federal union; more revenue comes back to the dominion treasury; more work is provided. Just a few minutes ago we heard from the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen), who told us that the situation in his province, as a result of technological advancement, is not good and that he is looking to this government to do something. I think he has a right to do so. We in the small provinces must get assistance or we cannot afford to develop. It seems to me that one of the main functions of the central government is to look over the family in the union and help it here and there in order to keep all the members prosperous and keep the federation of provinces in something of a fair balance.
During the past two years our province has regained the confidence of the investing public. Nevertheless, for a small province such as ours to finance a large power development such as that which we need, at a reasonable cost, is a handicap. At the present time our capacity is approximately 105,000 kilowatts. I am informed that reliable engineers estimate that by 1959, just a mere four years from now, if we are to have development of these mines which we want to get, together with the natural growth of domestic use we shall require 215,000 kilowatts. I might add that those estimates were made before the last announcement of the discovery of this manganese ore.
There is just one thing more I want to add, and that is this. There is no secret about the fact-and it is accepted-that hydro can be developed at a cheaper rate than can thermal power, which is the only alternative. This so-called Beechwood site will develop 135,000 horsepower. It has been thoroughly investigated not only by our own competent hydro engineers but by such outstanding authorities as the Power Corporation of Canada, the consulting firm of H. G. Acres Company Limited and the Shawinigan Engineering Company Limited. It has been found to be feasible as a good power site, and a recommendation for its development is on paper.
This is not the only site that will need to be developed. Our power requirements are
going to grow. Thermal plants will have to be built. If the Passamaquoddy project ever becomes feasible the power produced will be needed by the state of Maine, the province of Nova Scotia and ourselves. Someone has said, "Why not wait for power to be developed by atomic energy?" I may say that I am reliably informed that it will take 15 to 20 years to develop power from atomic energy that will compete with hydro.
In the meantime what are we going to do? Are we going to sit down and allow all our raw materials to be shipped out for processing in the United States and other places? We need power now. We want it available in large quantities by 1957. We want that smelter in the Bathurst area. We want that sulphur extracting plant in the Newcastle area. We want those other factories that go along with them. We also want manganese to be mined and smelted in the Saint John river valley.
The other day my friend the hon. member for Royal pointed out that manganese is extremely important in the manufacture of steel. But what makes this ore body more important than others in Canada is this. Without the close proximity of sulphur for the processing, manganese cannot be smelted at reasonable rates. At the present time I understand that sulphur has to be brought in, and that the two minerals cannot be found close together. In New Brunswick we have them in close proximity. In my hon. friend's constituency of Northumberland, N.B., there is sulphur and in my constituency, which is a mere 50 miles away, there will be the manganese.
The fact that those two minerals are found so close together is going to make the project profitable and worth while. That is the information I have. This is why we want to be able to provide power for the smelting of those minerals. It is going to help our railroads and it is going to help our ports, not only on the Saint John but in the Newcastle-Bathurst area on the Miramichi. It is going to give many people work. It is going to make us in New Brunswick feel as though we have a rightful place in the economy of this country. Above all, it will provide many markets for our agricultural products here at home.
I see that not all the members for New Brunswick are in their seats, Mr. Speaker. I wish that they were, because I am going to extend an invitation to all hon. members from New Brunswick who sit in this house to speak up for their native province, to get behind this request on behalf of the people of New Brunswick, and to convince this federal government that we need this
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Montgomery power and that we need their backing in order that the initial capital expenditure will not be too great. I am satisfied that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Gregg), New Brunswick's representative in the cabinet, is doing all he can, but let us not leave it all to one man. I do not think he can do it alone, but by the united efforts of all members from New Brunswick, supported by members from our sister province, I am satisfied that the government will not only be convinced of the justice of our cause but will grant our request without delay. I am a bit surprised at the silence until now of hon. members from New Brunswick.
An hon. Member:: Including the minister.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I ask them, do you not want to see the people of New Brunswick share in the progress of Canada? Do you not want to see our resources developed to the greatest possible extent within the boundaries of our own province? Do you not want to see important smelters and other industries established at home? Do you not want to help our railroads and ports? Above all, do you not want to give the same opportunities to our young people at home as, in the last few years, they have had to seek in other provinces or foreign countries?
I am satisfied, if the request for assistance from the people of New Brunswick is not favourably considered by the government, that the people there will look upon the silence of hon. members from that province and the lack of a united front as one of the reasons such assistance was not forthcoming. Mind you, every consumer of electric power is interested in this matter, because the price at which power can be delivered to the consumer is going to mean a great deal to these people in the next few years. Everyone is an interested party.
If assistance in a material way in the initial stages of our power development is favourably considered and immediately advanced, in the next five years it will benefit nine out of ten families in our province. Not only will it do that, it will also benefit a great many people in our sister provinces because work will be provided for them too. It is no secret that negotiations have been in progress between the provincial hydro commission and officials of the federal government. I hope such negotiations will be satisfactory and helpful to our province, and that our people will be treated as people in other provinces have been treated in the past when assistance was needed. You know, it makes no difference under what name the aid is given. It all adds up to the same thing-assistance.
Finally, I join with the hon. members for Royal and Saint John-Albert, and those other

members who I hope will rise and take a stand on this matter before the debate is over, in sincerely and respectfully asking the federal government to give favourable consideration to New Brunswick's request for assistance in the initial development of hydroelectric power at Beeclrwood, which has been found feasible and has been recommended for immediate development. I am satisfied that a favourable capital set-up in the development of this project will be a means of helping the people of New Brunswick help themselves; and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if they get that help they will be willing to go on.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) as well as the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) on the fine speeches they delivered while moving and seconding the address in reply to His Excellency's speech. I do wish however to congratulate more particularly the electors of these two constituencies for choosing, as their representatives in this house, men who are so highly qualified and I have no doubt that they will fittingly represent their respective constituencies and render them, and their country, great service.
I am pleased to be in a position to congratulate the government and especially the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for the decision to sell, at reduced prices, the surplus 20 million pounds of butter to approved institutions such as schools, hospitals, old folks' homes, etc. I would like the same offer to be made to the Red Cross, to women's institutes, to houses of refuge or Sisters of Charity so as to help all these organizations which are of such great importance for the aged, the sick or the needy. After all, the government has to help them in any case. In this way, these less fortunate citizens would enjoy good butter, a product of superior quality which would replace all those substitute products they are being served now. You will no doubt have read with the same surprise as I did some statistics published in the January 26 issue of the Citizen. It was mentioned there that the Ottawa Civic hospital buys about 4,000 pounds of butter and 30,000 pounds of margarine annually, butter being served only to private room patients or those on a special diet. As far as I am concerned I should prefer that no margarine be used in hospitals. If they must use that product, then it should be in the proportion of 4,000 pounds of margarine and 30,000 of butter. In this way all the sick, the aged and the needy could enjoy butter.

Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), which I believe would supplement the happy initiative that he has taken about butter. Here It is: he should buy five million pounds of cheese at the present price and resell it to these institutions, granting them a rebate of approximately 18 to 20 cents a pound, and then request that they serve good Canadian cheddar at all meals.
This same food product, together with a glass of milk, should be served free of charge twice a day in all our teaching institutions. For that purpose, I call upon our devoted and distinguished Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who could negotiate agreements with provincial governments inviting them to pay 50 per cent of the expenses this would involve, while the federal government would pay the other half. This would improve the health of our school children.
To the right hon. Minister of Agriculture, to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to our Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), as well as to the whole cabinet, I have another suggestion to make, one I have made in the past. In my opinion, the government should levy a sales tax of 10 cents a pound on oleomargarine and on all other butter substitutes. In return, the government could grant to all creameries a 10cent subsidy per pound of butter and maintain the ceiling price, of 58 cents a pound, for butter, to dairy farmers. With the storing costs, which average about one cent a pound, butter would then sell to wholesalers from 48 to 50 cents, according to the cost of transportation and storing, and the latter would have no right to retail butter at more than 51 to 55 cents a pound, according to costs of transportation and storage.
In this way the consumer could get butter at 10 cents less a pound. This tax on margarine would serve to cover part of the expense and the less fortunate among us could buy good butter very cheaply. Canadians could buy an excellent product while helping the farmers of this country and the charge on the government would not be excessive. That is very important, for it must be remembered that, if our agricultural class is not prosperous, the effects are felt throughout our economy. Our farmers are the heaviest buyers, per capita, of manufactured goods, for example of building materials or materials used in the repair of houses, barns, sheds, pig sties, chicken coops, garages, silos, fences and bridges, or again of farm machinery, automobiles, tractors, furniture, etc.
Certain hon. members would no doubt be surprised to learn that $6,000 worth of agricultural machinery of all kinds is required to
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour farm 100 acres, and that any farmer who wants to buy a complete set of modem machines, such as combine, baler, ensilage cutter, milking machine or refrigerator, must part with $12,000 and more. Then too the farmer needs house furnishings like any village, town or city dweller.
If I am saying this, it is not because the constituency of Russell, which I have the honour to represent, is rural. On the contrary, though it has been rural, it has become 75 per cent urban. No, I am speaking in this way because I think that it is for the good of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage). We are proud of him and of the fine work he has done so far.
I think too I should congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for his acumen in choosing his ministers.
Like other members, I regret the departure of some ministers, these most distinguished and qualified men, such as the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, former minister of transport, the Hon. D. C. Abbott, former minister of finance, and the Hon. Brooke Claxton, former minister of national defence.
However, our great and noble Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), guided by divine Providence, made a choice of other ministers who, in my opinion, will prove to be an asset to the whole country.
I should like to suggest to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) that he step up his reforestation program. In my opinion, the amounts devoted to this purpose by the federal government should be increased fourfold, and provinces should be requested to do likewise, besides getting county and township councils, as well as individuals, interested in reforestation and water conservation. I previously explained this here when I suggested a plan for the conservation of the water of the South Nation river which flows through about 15 counties in the eastern part of Ontario, making what is called the Ottawa valley.
I wish people who practise reforestation were exempt from land taxes; further, the money they spend on reforestation should be deductible from income tax, when they are called upon to pay it. These forests should be inspected by experts appointed by both federal and provincial governments and when time came to fell the trees these experts would point out the trees to be felled, as well as the trees to be replaced at that time. The owner of timber land could
694	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. O. Gour be taxed on the cutting, according to a reasonable standard laid down as well tor land taxes as for income tax purposes.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. (Translation):
Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, I would feel remiss in my duty if I did not call attention to the insult uttered against the province of Quebec by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). Although I do not live in Quebec, my constituency is adjacent to that beautiful province and I have several relatives, even brothers and sisters, among those charming Quebec people.
I have visited that province from one end to the other, as I did for all the rest of Canada, except for Newfoundland, where I would like to go shortly, because judging from the congenial and intelligent members sent to Ottawa to represent that province, I know that I shall not be disappointed.
I must tell my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam that he is completely ignorant of the character of the Quebec people, because there are no better, more intelligent and hospitable people in Canada. True, there are always some black sheep and I am wondering whether a few such from his own province are not now in Ottawa. If the present premier of Quebec has chosen to stress different points or give different interpretations of autonomy in order to have his candidates elected, a tactic of which I personally disapprove and which is certainly detrimental to good understanding and nefarious to the province of Quebec, it does not mean that he is a bad Canadian.
Does not each province and each political party have its own way of conducting elections and of submitting its program? Yes, Mr. Speaker, even the province of Ontario, one of the finest, not only in Canada but in the whole world, is inhabited by honourable, peaceful, intelligent and honest citizens, the great majority of whom are of English descent. I recognize that there are also some black sheep among them, just as there are in the maritimes and in western Canada. During my trips across Canada, I met honest, kind and intelligent people everywhere. This is not the place to disparage one province


or another. We are indeed fortunate in living in the greatest country in the world. In fact, we are truly privileged in having good citizens, from Vancouver to Halifax, and in Newfoundland-people who are the descendants of almost every race in the world, and who wish to live in harmony. The good I have to say about the other provinces, I also wish to apply to Quebec, where racial and religious matters, school rights and the rights of minorities are treated with more fairness than anywhere else in Canada. I would ask all hon. members to urge their own provincial governments to imitate Quebec as far as justice towards minorities is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I would be angry with myself if I did not speak of the matter so often discussed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely divorce, to which I am absolutely opposed. Marriage cannot be likened to an exchange of houses or automobiles. Divorce is the ruin of the family. What happens to the children of divorced people? Divorce is a moral evil which is greatly detrimental to the country. Married people should learn to put up with each other, to live together and bear their cross. Of course, when people do not want to understand each other, it is easy to find means and ways of divorcing. Most often, men are the guilty parties.
But, since our legislation permits divorce -and I congratulate Quebec and Newfoundland for not accepting that legislation-and since as Canadian citizens, people in those provinces are entitled to submit their case to the federal government, in my opinion no court could settle those cases better than the Senate and the House of Commons. The Senate committee, where the requests are first dealt with, is made up of Canada's most honourable citizens, lawyers, notaries, doctors, businessmen and farmers, men devoted to public service, who have wide experience as far as race, religion and all classes of society are concerned. They know the laws and customs of the land, and are, in short, honourable men, since they have been chosen to sit as senators, independent for life of politics and the powers of finance. No abler group of men could be found to pass on matters of divorce. They have all the time they need to review such cases, since we sit from six to eight months a year. For my part, had I a case to be tried, I would be happy to submit it to the senators. I am convinced that those who apply to them obtain justice.
I would also like to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and the government for the improvement made to the airport at

Uplands and for their decision to spend over $3 million to make this an ultra-modern airport, something which is quite called for in this national capital of ours.
I also wish to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) for his decision to build a military hospital at a cost of about $9 million at Billings Bridge. As it is the location of the Rideau health centre for ex-servicemen it is extremely well chosen. It provides all the necessary comforts to our convalescing veterans. Canada owes them all that can be done for their benefit.
While I have brought this matter to the attention of the Hon. Brooke Claxton, then minister of national defence, and of the present minister (Mr. Campney) on more than one occasion, I wish to come back to it today, in the house. I repeat that there are no better locations, with all the required space and protection from atomic attack, for the proposed national defence headquarters than the township of Gloucester, in the constituency of Russell. There are so many favourable sites that I shall refrain from singling one out. I am of the opinion, in any event, that in addition to the factors I have already mentioned, there is there all the space necessary to build houses for the employees who would like to live close to their work. This could be done at reasonable prices and I am sure that lots there would sell at one-tenth the price of those in centre-town.
We are certainly in need of housing, as evidenced by the fact that in 1954 the population of the constituency of Russell increased by 5,000, including 3,605 in the section annexed by the city of Ottawa.
I wish to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) for the great improvements he has achieved in his department by providing a much better postal service. We are glad to have so well qualified and devoted a minister. However, I should like to make a couple of suggestions to him. First, he should so change the regulations that where 10 per cent of the population is English-speaking or vice versa, the postmaster be bilingual. At the present time, the regulation lays down 20 per cent for this privilege. This change would make for better understanding and facilitate the harmony existing between the two great races in this country. My second suggestion concerns postmasters, who receive salaries ranging from $500 to $900 annually, while supplying the premises and catering to the public for 8 or 9 hours a day during
Privilege-Mr. Dupuis
6 days of the week. I suggest they be given better salaries. Employees of the Post Office Department and myself will have great difficulty in finding premises and employees ready to accept such employment in my constituency. At the present time, some of these offices have been closed for two or three months in my constituency. In fact the last one closed has been so for more than three months and we could find no one to accept the salary offered by the department.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the Postmaster General and all the other ministers who have to decide on sites for the construction of buildings for their departments to pick sites in the constituency of Russell where they will be welcome and where they will find the localities best suited from all points of view.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Hecior Dupuis (St. Mary):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege?


Hector Dupuis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He spoke for 45 minutes the other night.
(Translation):


Hector Dupuis: I will not make another speech; don't worry. I would like to make a correction with respect to a speech I made in this house on January 28 last. In a news item appearing in a Montreal paper, I was reported to have said that provincial governments' spending does not exceed the amount of the federal grants for hospital construction and medical services. I say, as I said before, that the subsidies granted by the federal government to the provinces amounted to $167 million for the period from 1948 to 1953, and the provinces were to spend an equal amount of money for the same purpose. I don't know what the other provinces' expenditures were, but I do know that, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the amount earmarked for that purpose was, in that province, greater than the amount granted by the federal government.

The Address-Mr. Castleden
I only wanted to straighten out the matter, so that there will be no misunderstanding as to what I said.
(Text):



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter with which I wish to deal briefly before saying anything on the speech from the throne. This is a matter which I am sure will have the support of all hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan, irrespective of where they may sit in this house. I refer to the jubilee celebration of the entry of Saskatchewan and Alberta into confederation.
Fifty years ago these two prairie provinces were admitted as constitutional members of the Dominion of Canada. We are proud of Canada, proud of its record, proud to belong to Canada and to be counted as citizens of this great dominion. Our story of the prairies is one of the moulding together of a cosmopolitan group of people from almost every country of the old world, from Europe and Asia. It is a story of how they pioneered that land together, met and overcame the difficulties and the problems of developing it into great provinces making a great contribution to the Dominion of Canada.
This year we are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary, and I merely want to say that Saskatchewan invites everybody in Canada, including all hon. members who can possibly come to that province this year, to visit the prairies and help us pay tribute to the great pioneers, those people who through their toil and courage have given to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and Canada as a whole, a great heritage and a great example.
The throne speech of 1955 has been called many names. It was aptly described by one journalist as a rather dull chronicle of stale news. As a matter of fact it is, I believe, a masterpiece of evasion and indifference in so far as basic remedies for those economic problems which face Canada today are concerned. It seemed also to be studied in its efforts to pass over lightly some very important problems such as unemployment and the


declining farm income, things which face the Canadian people as a whole and which so often seem to be so far from this chamber.
Last year the same attitude was evident, and we attacked that attitude. At that time we asked that steps be taken to take care of the situation. We were told that unemployment was just seasonal and would rectify itself when summer came and the ice moved out of the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river. But this winter unemployment is even worse. In that portion of Canada from which I come the unemployment situation is at least 50 per cent worse than it was a year ago. The 60-day extension of unemployment insurance benefits, which everyone in this house supported and endorsed, is just a salve to help those unfortunate unemployed people through a couple of bad months in the winter time. It is no substitute for employment.
The people are eagerly looking for something to be done to assure them of some possibility of exchanging their labour for a living. Every trade union brief presented to the government in the past year has emphasized the matter of unemployment, yet no effective measures seem to have been taken. As a matter of fact, I personally am beginning to doubt whether this government has a cure for the problem short of a threat of war.
Policies dealing with trade and price control, which affect the cost of living, the problems of taxation and immigration-all these things affect the Canadian economy. They are the responsibilities of the federal government. The provincial governments can do very little about them; but if as a result of these policies half a million people are unemployed, then the responsibility for employable unemployed rests upon this government whose policies to a large extent have created the situation.
Instead of accepting that responsibility, what do we find? The government says to the municipalities, "We take no responsibility for the unemployed employables beyond the Unemployment Insurance Act". Is it going to be a repetition of the old story; that the municipalities are going to be asked to share this burden, with small grants from the provincial government, and they shall have to carry it?
That is just not good enough. The federal government receives approximately 72 per cent of the taxpayer's dollar. This government is responsible for the policies which largely cause unemployment in this country; and I repeat, this government must accept

The Address-Mr. Castleden
that responsibility. The convention of mayors of Canada pointed this out to the officials of this government. I can assure the government that unless they take more effective action to restore employment in this country there will be a storm of protest from all parts of Canada, and it will be a united protest. Half a million unemployed is not a healthy sign in a country such as Canada, with all its resources. Since the war we have brought a million people to this country. We heard members this afternoon tell of young men in their province going as far away as New Zealand in order to obtain employment in the lumber camps of that country.
When people are unemployed for any length of time they are confronted with serious problems. A man may have invested his life savings in a home, or he may be building a home. If unemployment strikes for a few months he can carry the burden, but when it continues beyond that length of time and he finds he must move away from the district in order to get employment, -if he can find it-he stands to lose his whole investment. It is a much greater loss than just being unemployed. It is too serious a thing to be taken lightly. It is a serious reflection on our economy that people can enjoy prosperity and employment only in wartime. If our economy cannot provide employment for the Canadian people it must stand condemned.
In the field of agriculture we have the same problem. In the presentations made to the government by various farm organizations, by the federation of agriculture, by the farm union organization, which is a growing, young and vigorous organization trying to unite the farmers so that they can speak with one voice, reference is made to some of the things which are basically wrong. They ask the government to take steps to remove some of the injustices and give some stability to the agriculture industry of this country so they can look forward to making a living in that industry. This is an industry upon which a large percentage of Canadians depend for their existence.
There is one thing common to all these protests. They state that their costs of production are continuing to rise while the returns for the things they produce and sell are constantly and rapidly declining. There can be only one final result if there is a continuation of that trend. When your returns keep lessening and your costs of operating continue to rise, as soon as they cross one another you are facing bankruptcy. They are facing this problem seriously; they are looking for some effective solution.
In many provinces of this dominion agriculture is the main industry. I believe it is safe to say that in our province over 80 per cent of the people obtain their living from agriculture. Unfortunately during the past year we were faced with a serious problem created by rust, and then frost. The income of the farmers of that province was reduced last summer by some $300 million. This is bound to have its effect upon the whole economy. Taxes cannot be paid; the provincial government is going to suffer from lack of income, it and municipalities are going to be unable to provide services to the degree they have in the past.
The farmer is trying to obtain some stability. He does not mind facing the ordinary difficulties with which nature may confront him. He has been brought up on that kind of thing, and he does not mind facing it. But he wants to know that if and when he does produce a crop as a result of his efforts, he can look forward to obtaining a proper return for his labour. If that is established, then he can weather the storms of a year or two of difficulty.
I was interested in reading the recommendations contained in the submission to the government of Canada by the interprovincial farm union council. They made reference to the difficulties which the western farmers were having in making both ends meet, and on page 3 of their brief they stated:
According to the federal bureau of statistics, from July, 1951 to October, 1953, the wholesale price index of manufactured goods declined by 15*6 points (1935-39=100). But the farm products wholesale price index dropped by 68-6 points in the same period-a difference of 53 points. This trend of falling farm prices has continued in a lesser degree during the remainder of 1953 and for 1954.
Farm people themselves, and those who are familiar with agricultural conditions, cannot help but be disturbed by diminishing farm income compared with abnormally high operating costs. Measured in terms of purchasing power-as represented in cash obtained from the sale of farm products-the farm dollar is worth less than it has been for a good many years.
It is to this that the farmer looks. He wants it done now, rather than having to wait. Each year creates new problems and makes it more difficult. A man finds he is going deeper and deeper into debt as a result of his operations. Unless there is some assurance of the forward pricing of commodities, unless there is some hope that he can plan his production so as not to lose more by going into production, the farmer will find himself in difficulty at almost every turn.
He is told that with hogs bringing 32 cents he should be feeding his grain to hogs. He goes into the raising of hogs; then a few months later when he brings the bulk of his
698	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Castleden hogs to market he finds there has been a decline in price and instead of 32 cents it is down to 20k cents. The price is below what was supposed to be the floor price. A break of 30 per cent is just not good enough. That drop of 30 per cent wipes out any possibility he may have of getting some return for his labour.
There are floor prices but many of them are too low, as was pointed out in this brief. Frequently a price is fixed for A hogs, but there is no floor price under the others. The spread between them constantly varies, and becomes so great that the production of second and third grade hogs means practically losing money. This is also pointed out on page 10 of the brief, where it states:
The government guarantees 38 cents per dozen at point of storage to those who store eggs, and for all practical purposes this is the end of the guarantee. Consequently, the producer receives whatever price is paid by the egg stations and we doubt very much if the country dealers will pay 32 cents a dozen to producers, as the Minister of Agriculture suggests they should.
The thing that is needed here is a guarantee to the producer, not just the packing company. Consumers know this as well, but farmers note that in spite of the deep decline in the prices they are getting for livestock- in 1951 you got $240 or $250 for a good steer which today can be bought for $100, a drop of almost 60 per cent-there is no corresponding drop in the price the consumer pays in the butcher shop or which the butcher pays when he buys his meat from the packing company. It is quite evident that the packing companies are able to manipulate prices for their own benefit.
The farmers' union have been unanimous in their requests that these injustices be removed. The request has been made year after year that a livestock marketing board be established to remove these injustices. This livestock marketing board should contain proper representation of farmers. The failure of the government to take more effective action along this line contributes a great deal to the discontent among the farm population. The trade unions have shown in their briefs to the government that they realize that a healthy agricultural economy is the best guarantee they can have that there will be a home market for the goods which they are producing. It means work for them in the farm implement plants. Automobile, truck and motor plants will continue in operation, and there will be work for them only when there is farm demand.
For some years now the Canadian farmers have been watching with envy the achievements of the United States farmers in the field of forward pricing, what they call 90 per cent


of parity. They recognize that there are difficulties in following the same kind of program in Canada where we export such a large percentage of our wheat. There is, however, one thing they realize. That is that if in other countries some floor can be placed under agricultural products to the extent that the farmer is given stability, through this system of knowing what his price will be when he goes into production, it is something he is after in Canada, taking into consideration the problems that face him in this country.
There should be some more adequate stabilization of farm products in a forward way so that, for instance, when the farmer starts into production in raising a herd of cattle, if that is going to be his business or if that is the business for which his land is best suited, he can go into it with some assurance that there will be a floor price below which his commodity will not fall; and that floor should be high enough so he will not be forced to spend years working on his product and then, when he comes to sell it, find that everything has dropped and that he is losing out.
The farmers in Canada are realizing their position. There is a new idea growing among them. That idea is that if our great neighbours can work together with their farmers so that all political parties support a program that will guarantee stability to the agricultural industry, then we in Canada can do the same thing. The farm organizations are asking the farmers today-whether they are in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario or Quebec-to come together in one organization so they can speak with one united voice to guarantee stability to an industry which I believe is the greatest in Canada, and upon which the prosperity of this dominion depends more than any other.
The importation of millions of pounds of cheese into Ontario at this time, without adequate steps being taken to protect the cheese producers, is just the type of thing that aggravates the farmer to the point where he is willing to kick over the traces. He wants to know where he stands with regard to policies of this kind. He wants to know where he will be with guarantees; if guarantees were given, would the government then assure him that if they import this cheese-if through some negotiations on the exchange of goods and trade this is necessary-he will know long enough ahead so he can take steps to adjust his production and the matter can be taken care of.
The farmers of Ontario who are raising stock find the same kind of problem facing them that faces the stock grower in western Canada. As these farmers get together they

notice that they too are being stymied every time they attempt to work together to stabilize the production of hogs or to get their commodity to the market. In some parts of Ontario the farmers, endeavouring to get truckers to haul their hogs from their own farms to their own packing plant, have found that the truckers, who are apparently under the control of the packing houses, refuse to haul their hogs to the market which the farmers designate. There are always the boys on top, one move ahead of the farmers, always keeping in control. They are afraid that the farmers, through their organization, in some way might be able to meet the kind of competition presented by the methods the packing companies use to beat them down.
The farmers of Canada are resolved, united and determined. They are not going to give up this battle until there is a proper program of stability for agriculture. You can hardly blame them. Certainly the people who for their own prosperity are dependent upon the farmers' prosperity, are going to support the farmers 100 per cent. The people who are in the farm implement business, the people who are dealers and merchants in the towns in areas and communities where their whole livelihood depends upon the prosperity of the farmer, are going to support him in getting a solution to this problem.
There is every indication that this country will be facing a tremendous bill for relief if the present trend continues with regard to unemployment. There is nothing today to indicate that the government have solved the problem. It is our contention that it would be much better for the government to spend money upon this farm industry in order to give it stability so these people can then get employment. Then they will not have to be paid for sitting idly and doing nothing. The money spent on a properly established price support program for farm products will, in our opinion, be much better spent than money spent on unemployment relief.
A healthy agricultural industry will do more to bolster the Canadian economy than will millions spent in a niggardly way in order to feed unemployed people. The farmer with income purchases farm machinery, furniture, automobiles, trucks, fertilizers, gas and oil, and equipment for his farm operations. His farm production provides work for railways, the meat packing industry and steamship lines. Canada will never sink into a serious depression as long as the farm industry has stability. The objective of all organized farmers in Canada is stability. They should have the support of all in this house in this demand for justice.
The Address-Mr. Castleden
To refer to my own constituency, may I say that the average farmer in my area operates a farm of about half a section or about 320 acres. His income this year will not begin to cover his 1954 operations. It is not unusual for the Canadian farmer to face calamity such as rust and frost and he is taking it without much complaint. But one thing the farmer demands is that there shall be stability next year when and if he can produce a crop. In the meantime some interim and final payments on the 1953 crop will help tide him over. It will not meet the costs. The farmer was in debt last year.
One year ago I pointed out the dangers facing agriculture, with declining income and increasing costs. At that time I told the house that the farmer had only one way to go and that was into debt, and that the farmer was going into debt. My statement was questioned here. I made personal contact with some of the people concerned and obtained corroboration from the local merchants, bankers and municipal officials. My own findings were that over 80 per cent of the farmers engaged in the agricultural business in my part of the province were in debt, some of them seriously. The situation will probably be worse next summer because the effect of the loss of the 1954 crop will not be felt until this next summer. This is the cause of the demand of the farmers.
In studying their problem the farmers see that they face an impossible situation by reason of this present situation. They have borrowed money to buy implements. The Farm Improvement Loans Act has been of some assistance to them, but they now find difficulty in meeting their obligations. One hope they have is that there is going to be some stability behind their operations in the future. Through their organizations, united in the western provinces at least and growing in the east, they have put forward to the government the things they feel to be necessary to achieve that stability. They are going to continue that fight, and the people who represent them here will be negligent in their duties if they do not support them.
Another thing that adds to the aggravation of the farmer is the continuance of the control over the allocation of box cars. When the farmer goes to deliver his grain it makes him very angry to find that he is faced with the necessity of delivering his grain to the opposition line elevator company merely because there was no allocation of cars to his own elevator. Every farmer should have the right to deliver his grain to the elevator of his choice. Surely that can be arranged at this time, when the heavy box car congestion is largely over. Any farmer who wishes

The Address-Mr. Castleden to deliver to the line elevator company should have the right to do so. The farmer saw that last year his wheat pool lost some 8 per cent, or 32 million bushels of grain in the handling operation because of the allocation of box cars.
This was an injustice which cut him very deeply. He fought for years and years to establish his own co-operative pool organization to fight against the organized grain trade and the grain exchange in Winnipeg which exploited him for so long. He finally established his own wheat board, and it disturbed him no end to see that these people he has fought against are now again gaining sufficient influence in high places to carry on this kind of campaign against his organization. He is going to continue to fight for his right to deliver his grain to his own elevator.
I should like to turn to another matter which is important to my constituents, and which was not mentioned in the throne speech. I refer to old age pensions. Our senior citizens are experiencing hardship and suffering which to say the least is disturbing. Before the present session is finished the government will be urged to increase the old age pension and the pension to the blind in keeping with the cost of living in Canada. When the old age pension was increased to $40 a month that was a good thing. We thought we were moving forward, but at the same time the government removed price controls and the increase in the cost of living just about wiped out the increase in the amount of the pension. Today $40 scarcely buys what $20 did 12 years ago. Surely something should be done to increase the amount of money paid to our old age pensioners, our senior citizens who are unable to earn a living any longer themselves and who have to depend entirely on the old age pension.
The pension should be related in some way to the cost of living in Canada, so that if the cost of living rises the pension will be increased by a proportionate amount. Thus these people would have some guarantee of their ability in the future to live on the pension which is paid to them. It is surely only right to these deserving people. Surely we can tell them that they will not be allowed to suffer as the result of a fluctuating cost of living. Canadians cannot be proud of this condition existing among the older citizens today.
Finally I want to refer briefly to the international field. In our efforts to win the world for democracy we must consider the hungry peoples of the world. It is necessary for us to prove by our actions that democracy is better than any other form of government,


that democracy means more to the people of the world than any other way of life. We now have the opportunity to help the hungry peoples of the world, particularly the millions of Asia. It is my belief that providing these people with food, and helping them to develop their own resources, is at least as good a way of wooing them to democracy as a show of military strength. In the world of today a police force is necessary, but at the same time a larger share of the expenditures of the government should be made for humane purposes. We should be helping to feed these people and expand the Colombo plan in order to show the world that the democratic way of life is the best way of life.
Since war is now the way to complete destruction it is evident to people that there must be some alternative to war. If there is, we have to change. Let us see that we change in the right direction toward tolerance and human brotherhood, rather than showing the mailed fist as one means of forcing our will upon our fellow men.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with the intention of using most of my time to take advantage of the opportunity which this debate offers to discuss some of the problems of my own riding.
I represent the riding of Humber-St. George's, which in the last parliament was represented by Mr. W. R. Kent. I should like first to give you some facts about my riding. It comprises practically the whole west coast of Newfoundland, or that part of the province which faces the gulf of St. Lawrence. This riding includes three of the provincial electoral districts, namely St. George's, Humber and St. Barbe. It has a coast line of about 300 miles as the crow flies, but taking into account all the bays and indentations it is more nearly 1,000.
The St. George's area, which is in the southern part, is one of the beauty spots of the province, in fact one of the beauty spots of the whole of Canada. Farming is the main industry here and has been for a number of years, for here are situated some of the finest farms in the province. It may well be that with a progressive farm policy and fuller use of existing farm legislation on the federal level, a more vigorous marketing scheme could be encouraged as well as an increase in dairy and meat products. Logging and fishing are important to the area.
The fishing industry is one that has a potential well worthy of consideration. Cod and halibut are in abundance a few miles offshore, with the inshore fishing consisting of lobster all along the coast and with great

quantities of herring and scallops in Port au Port bay. But the task of the fisherman here, on a straight bluff shore with few harbours, is indeed one of many hazards. I hope we are not too far away from the time when facilities will be installed at Codroy harbour, Grand Bay, Port au Port bay and St. George's bay, not only for the sake of the fishermen in the area but also as a haven for the many small boats which ply their trade along the hazardous coast line. The middle section of my riding is known as the Humber, named after the Humber river which flows down the beautiful and fertile valley between thickly wooded hills to empty into the bay of Islands.
Here in this valley is another of the really good farming areas in the province. My previous remarks concerning farming would apply to this area, too. While farming has never been the major industry of Newfoundland I believe it could still play a greater part in the economy of the province than it has heretofore.
Along the shores of the bay of Islands the fishing industry has been successfully carried on for many years. Harbour facilities have greatly improved since the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. I am sure they will continue to be improved for the benefit of those who seek to take their living from the sea.
Here at the mouth of the Humber river and 30 miles inland from the gulf of St. Lawrence is the modern town of Corner Brook, site of the great Bowater's pulp and paper mill. It is the largest integrated newsprint mill in the world. This plant has an annual production of over 350,000 tons of newsprint and sulphite, and employs over 6,000 workers. It is an efficiently operated unit with an enviable record of relations between management and labour. One can surely appreciate the impact which this mill has had on the economy of the province since its construction in the early twenties.
While talking about the pulp and paper industry in my riding it might be well for us to have a look at this industry throughout Canada as a whole. It has been the leading industry in Canada for many years. In value of production, in exports, in total wages paid and in capital investment it is the largest of all Canadian industries. It is Canada's largest consumer of goods and services, including transportation. The newsprint industry in Canada has five times the output of the industry in any other country, and supplies one-half the world's newsprint needs. The expansion of this industry must naturally take into account the fact that raw material is the prime factor.
The Address-Mr. Batten
Canada's forests, totalling nearly 1 [DOT] 5 million square miles, are amongst the largest in the world, with over 800,000 square miles capable of producing continuous wood crops. In this house we have been hearing a great deal in the last few days about the reduction in exports and loss of foreign markets. Such is not the case so far as this industry is concerned. Shipments from Canadian mills in October last set a new record, which was again broken in November. Shipments in November, 1954, showed an increase of 10-5 per cent over shipments for the corresponding month in 1953. Newsprint Data, 1954 edition, published by the newsprint association of Canada, states that Canada is rapidly regaining its overseas markets and estimates that shipments to the United Kingdom in 1955 will very nearly equal the pre-war level.
Coming back to a description of my riding, the area extending north from the bay of Islands along the west coast of the northern peninsula, toward Labrador, is known as St. Barbe. For many decades the men along this coast have fought to earn a living from the sea. In many places wharves and breakwaters have been built, but much still remains to be done if those who live in the area are to be enabled to earn their living from the sea. Logging and lumbering offer employment as a supplement to fishing. Here again, from the scenic Bonne bay to the wave-lashed shores of the strait of Belle Isle, are long stretches of straight coast line with very few harbours, inhabited by people whose resolute sturdiness is excelled only by their hospitality.
From the early days of its discovery Newfoundland has been recognized as a fishing country. For many years it flourished as a result of the great demand of the European and South American markets for fish. During the 1920's large quantities of Newfoundland cod were sold to Spain, Portugal and Brazil. Following this period the markets open to us were gradually closed. Spain and Portugal expanded their own fishing industries to the point where the demand was considerably reduced. Methods of fishing other than those normally used produced a quantity of small fish not acceptable in some markets, particularly those of Portugal. Then there were the difficulties presented by countries willing to barter, as well as those presented by countries in the sterling area. Added to all this was the difference in standards of living, which resulted in the seller's minimum price sometimes being higher than the buyer's maximum price.
In Canada the fishing industry is one of the country's oldest, but over the years it has lost some of its relative importance. In the
702	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Batten coastal regions it is still of paramount importance, a fact which is particularly true of Newfoundland. Today 19,000 fishermen in 1,000 small hamlets scattered over 10,000 miles of coast line strive to eke a living from the sea. It has been done successfully in the past, and I believe it can be done again through the introduction of better methods of catching, curing and marketing a quality product. Figures for 1946 to 1952 show that the maritime provinces have pretty well maintained their share of the national total, and while comparable figures for Newfoundland are not available I believe the same statement is virtually true.
For those who would build dungeons in the air I would point out that the Canadian fishing industry, too, had a favourable year in 1954. For the first ten months of 1954 the catch was 11 per cent higher in volume and 8 per cent higher in value than for a similar period in 1953. Larger sales of fillets to the United States and of canned salmon to the United Kingdom resulted in a 12 per cent increase in export value over the previous year. In Newfoundland there were indications of the result of negotiations carried on last year by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) in an effort to reopen European markets which were formerly big buyers of Newfoundland products.
The fishing industry in Newfoundland has always been, and very likely must continue to be, very dependent upon foreign trade. Newfoundland, along with the other maritime provinces and the prairie provinces, must be deeply concerned with any trade policy this government may adopt. Certainly a policy of protective tariffs would not be conducive to the best trading possibilities at a time when, due to conditions over many of which we have no control, we are already having difficulty in competing in foreign markets.
Here in Canada we are in quite a different position with regard to export trade than is the United Kingdom or the United States. England, with its relatively large population and consequent large domestic market, has an export trade of 17 per cent of its total trade. Similarly in the United States, where a tremendous interstate trade is carried on, only 6 per cent of its total trade is on an international level. Here in Canada we have a relatively small population with a proportionately high degree of production, and an export trade of approximately 25 per cent of our total trade.
The future of this country depends upon the high volume of our export trade. Our economic future is dependent upon our strong competitive position in world markets. I believe that to hide behind higher tariff


barriers at this time would be to mortgage that future. In my opinion this policy is the correct one for Canada in general to follow. Certainly it is the correct policy that will breathe life into the fisheries of Newfoundland.
Many improvements have been made there, and I am sure others will come. But in the final analysis success will depend upon being able to sell our products at prices which will give a living wage to 19,000 fishermen whose homes now dot the shores of an island that was recognized as a great fishing province when the wind was still blowing through the forests on the sites of every major industry on the Canadian mainland. But I do believe that for the industry to be attractive it must not only offer opportunity for making a living, but must also be able to offer some of the benefits now granted to workers in other occupations.
In the speech from the throne we were informed that the government proposed this session to introduce legislation granting loans to fishermen' similar to those granted to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This, I believe, is a step in the right direction, and I commend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) for his action in this regard.
During the last session of parliament, and again early in this session, there has been mention of unemployment insurance for fishermen. Although I am not unmindful of the many difficulties to be overcome before such benefits could be extended, I believe it is possible, and would give my support to such a measure. In commercial fish establishments those who are engaged are eligible for unemployment insurance, yet the initial producer who makes these jobs possible is denied this benefit.
In my constituency there are many fishermen who, in order to earn a living for their families, are forced to supplement their low incomes from the fishing industry by work in the woods when employment is available, during part of the winter months. Many of these do not qualify for insurance benefits. If, however, by some formula they could be given credit for summer work, then they would be eligible for benefits during the winter months. I would join with my other colleagues from Newfoundland who have made reference to this matter in recommending to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) that consideration be given to such a measure.
Now, while discussing the fisheries of Newfoundland there are two other points I should like to mention. In my riding

within the last tew years, the lobster industry has assumed such proportions as to become of major concern to the fishermen in the area. Lobsters are caught in the conventional lobster traps, held in pools and shipped to the United States markets by boat. Fishermen who during the past summer prosecuted this type of fishing had a better than average year, so far as the quantity caught was concerned, but did not receive proportionate returns due to the fact that a large percentage of the catch was unsuitable upon arrival at the market. Too large a percentage was either dead, weak or maimed.
I have no figures which would suggest the average loss, but I did see individual accounts showing, in extreme cases, a loss of over 20 per cent. Whether these losses are due to improper care during the preshipment period or due to faulty methods of shipping is difficult to determine. But it is a problem which is causing some concern, and is one that needs some attention, not only from the standpoint of the return to the fishermen but also in the interests of conservation. In 1953 the federal Department of Fisheries completed experiments on the commercial holding of live lobsters. I believe these experiments are important to this industry in avoiding the causes of mortality among lobsters during the pre-shipment period.
The province of Newfoundland will not only be known as a great centre for commercial fishing, but also for sport fishing at its very best. In my riding are some of the finest trout streams and salmon pools on the North American continent. Here is a sportsman's paradise that even the expert on fish stories need not hesitate to describe. We in Newfoundland believe that this is our greatest tourist attraction, and it is our hope that with the new ferry on the gulf of St. Lawrence and the completion of the trans-Canada highway, visitors and sportsmen will be encouraged to come to our province during the summer months. In this instance there is little need for me to emphasize the importance of conservation methods. On some rivers the federal Department of Fisheries has conducted experiments, and on others improvements have been made. May I suggest a continuance of this program.
I believe that Canadians have a very healthy respect for conservation. In a land so bountifully blessed with natural resources it augurs well for the future that some thought is given to posterity's welfare. But our thoughts for tomorrow must sometimes be expressed in regulations to ensure that conservation is not only a mental attitude but also a practical reality. In the case of which
The Address-Mr. Batten I am speaking-the salmon rivers-I trust that present regulations will be enforced by river guardians and others who are concerned with such matters, and that other regulations will be designed if necessary so that this resource, which I say again is our greatest tourist attraction, will not only continue to bring visitors to our province but will also continue to afford to Newfoundlanders the joy of "fishing on a river on a morn in mid-July".
The Disabled Persons Act passed by this parliament last session and proclaimed on January 1 of this year has already received wide approval. I feel it will be welcomed as a needed addition to our present social security program, when it comes into effect in the different provinces. In my own province of Newfoundland this allowance for totally and permanently disabled persons will go into effect on April 1 of this year.
I was pleased to note in the speech from the throne that amendments are to be made during this session of parliament to the Blind Persons Act of 1952. It will be remembered that by that act the basic pension had been doubled, the residence requirements reduced by one-half, the income ceiling approximately doubled and the minimum age reduced to 21 years. It is now proposed to lower still farther the age of eligibility and to raise the income ceiling.
I am sure these amendments are understandable and welcome. While only a small number of Newfoundlanders will be affected, yet the percentage involved will be the third highest of all the provinces and nearly double the average for the whole of Canada. For the year ending March 31, 1954 the report of the department of welfare of Newfoundland records 335 persons as recipients of blind persons' allowances, which is 0-183 per cent of the population from age 20 to 69 years and 0 086 per cent of the total population of the province.
Here again is evidence of the ever-expanding social services of this nation to include within its scope not only the majority groups but also the smaller minority groups that form a part of the population of this land.
During this session of parliament amendments are to be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The proposed improvements to increase the basic allowance and raise the income ceiling will not only prove to be very acceptable to the 42,000 veterans and widows of veterans at present benefiting under the existing act, but will also be recognized by the citizens of Canada as another worthy advance in a program already recognized for its distinction.
704	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Perron Now, Mr. Speaker, we do have our problems in my riding, as they do in the other ridings in Newfoundland and in the other 258 ridings on the mainland of Canada. Some of these are problems of recent origin. Others are problems that have been handed down to us by a very severe history. We have those problems discussed sometimes by one group and sometimes by another. Sometimes we have people who spend an hour or two in the province, or in my riding, and without any knowledge of the historical background or of the local setting proceed to pronounce what the policies ought to be. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that I shall have to classify those people as itinerant victims of a midsummer night's dream. But we do have our problems, sir, and on the most important we usually reach solutions that are fairly satisfactory, even though sometimes the majority be small.
It has been said in this house that the fortunes of Newfoundland are at a very low ebb. With that statement, Mr. Speaker, I would have to very sincerely disagree. If we were to compare the lot of Newfoundlanders 20 years ago with the lot of Newfoundlanders now we would find a tremendous difference; and even if we were to take that 20-year period and divide it into four five-year periods, we would find that there is not only a difference between now and 20 years ago but there has been a successive improvement over those four five-year periods. We have today in Newfoundland, for example, a standard of living that may not be as high as in some places on the mainland, but that is immeasurably higher than it was 20 years ago. The year 1953 was a good year for Newfoundland; 1954 was not so good, but still a good year. Even at this present moment, for example, the unemployment situation in Newfoundland is better than it was at this time last year.
No, Mr. Speaker; the fortunes of Newfoundland are not at a low ebb, for I believe that the fortunes of any people are not manifested only in the material things which they bless and which they are blessed by. The fortunes of a people are also in the things for which they have some respect, in the things in which they have faith. We as new Canadians come to this mainland of Canada and bring with us a respect for the institution of Canadian democracy, a faith in the future of this great land, that if excelled at all will be excelled only by those who have always had the privilege of calling themselves Canadians.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Perron (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, several members having congratulated the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder 

(Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which is quite in order and well deserved by the members in question, have proceeded to criticize the speech from the throne for several reasons. As far as I am concerned, since it is not up to me to eulogize it, I would like to say a few words on a matter of interest to the economy of this country as a whole. This question has been raised several times since the beginning of this debate, though no mention has been made of it in the speech from the throne, a fact which is somewhat surprising. I refer to the question of agriculture, which is certainly the most important at this time, in the west as well as in the east. Since I have been here, I have heard it said repeatedly that the western farmer is not in an excellent position, and that he even has wheat surpluses of which he cannot dispose. On the other hand our eastern farmers complain that their revenue has considerably diminished this year again and that they view the future with some misgivings.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if this be not a serious depression it is something rather similar; we are moving in that direction. In order to satisfy everyone I could say that our farmers are at present in the midst of a disturbance which the government claim to be temporary but which shows signs of going on indefinitely.
Still, if we read the speech from the throne all we see there with regard to agriculture and to the urgent problems which the government have to solve is this. I am quoting from page 3 of Hansard,:
Although the national economy is in a generally healthy condition, the relatively poor wheat crop is being reflected by a small decline in the total national income.
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely all there is in the speech from the throne to solve what the government call a disturbance, but what you and I would call a depression. There is no clear remedy proposed.
And moreover, this single sentence from the speech from the throne which hardly touches upon the problem at all, bears no relation whatever to the facts. It is simply not true that the relatively poor wheat crop has brought about a slight decrease in national revenue, since this crop has not yet been sold. We still have to sell enormous surplus stocks of wheat before marketing the 1954 crop. Whether that crop has been good or bad can in no way bear upon the national revenue for 1954.
What might have had an adverse effect on this revenue-a fact which is not mentioned in the speech from the throne-is that the eastern farmer, besides having had a

poor crop, has sold his products at lower prices, failing a proper market, so that his personal revenue has decreased as much as 15 per cent, and much more than that in certain areas.
There is unquestionably an urgent problem to solve, and the fact that the speech from the throne makes no mention at all of the steps the government intends to take to help the farmer is not easy to explain.
There is no hiding the fact, farmers are concerned and expect from this government the assistance required by the situation. The only stable income they have been able to rely on for the past few years has been the income from the dairy industry, thanks to the support price of 58 cents a pound for butter.
However, the government have not yet announced the policy they intend to adopt in this connection this year, which keeps the farmers in a state of concern.
It appears to me necessary that the government maintain the price support at the same level.
This price of 58 cents was set in April, 1951 and I think it can safely be said that, since that date, production costs have increased. However, the price has remained the same. The only reason which would justify a reduction of the support price would be a reduction in the production costs. According to estimates, production costs this year will remain the same as in 1954. Such, at least, are the conclusions reached by experts of the Department of Agriculture in the course of a recent federal-provincial agricultural conference.
As another argument, I must say that, from March 1949, when it was put into effect, to January 1, 1955, price support will have cost the taxpayer, if I am rightly informed, less than $2 million, that is to say an average of about $300,000 a year. It involves a relatively minor expense to ensure a bit of security to a class of society which is the most important in the country and whose other sources of income at the present time, barring the dairy industry, are influenced by all sorts of risks, making them uncertain and precarious.
The poor crop of last year, due to bad weather, not only caused farmers to lose some income, but, in 1955, they will be faced with a shortage of seed which will entail the additional expense of a few hundred dollars for each one of them, come sowing time. Serious difficulties are anticipated, at least in the province of Quebec, next spring, to the extent that the government may have to help by means of subsidies. Were the sup-nort price of butter to be abolished, at a 50433-45
The Address-Mr. Deschatelets time when farmers will be faced by these extraordinary expenses, that would no doubt spell disaster.
In order to face the seasonal unemployment crisis, the house recently amended the Unemployment Insurance Act with a view to increasing unemployment insurance benefits. This was a humanitarian measure that the house approved unanimously. However, this measure will involve considerable outlays and it seems to me that the government should not be stingy when it comes to helping the farmer who, also, is entitled to a minimum of security.
As far as the consumer is concerned, I do not think that he is affected by the support price. Because of the support price the consumer always pays the same price for his butter, whereas he would pay, let us say, 45 cents during the production season, when there is plenty of butter, that is during the summer months, but during the off season, that is in the winter months, he would pay 75 cents, which in terms of money paid out amounts to exactly the same thing, that is 60 cents the year round. Therefore the support price has the merit of saving that commodity from the ups and downs of a market which can easily be made to fluctuate.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to maintain the 58 cents a pound support price and to announce such a policy as soon as possible so as to put an end to the uncertainty now prevailing. The price should be set at 58 cents for the next two years as called for by all farm organizations throughout the country.
By so doing the government will assure a minimum revenue to every farmer in eastern Canada where farming is the principal industry.
If it were announced immediately, such a policy would make up for the silence kept on that score in the speech from the throne.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I represent in this house a county with a mostly working class population, and I would briefly like to comment on certain legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne that bears upon employment.
It would be well to consider first the degree of economic activity in the past year, in order to comfort our friends in the opposition, for, in spite of their claims, the general position is a good one, and I have always thought that official statistics give better information than speculations and near-truths.
The gross national product for 1954 amounts to $23 -9 billion whereas it attained $24-3 billion in 1953, or a mere 2 per cent variation, which shows an appreciable stability in our production.

The Address-Mr. Deschatelets
Consumer purchases reached a higher total in 1954 than in 1953, a fact denoting a still very high level of national purchasing power.
At the end of October industrial production in general shows only an average 2 per cent recession with regard to the year before. It should be noted, however, that the total amount for October, 1954 is higher than the corresponding figure in 1953.
And, if it is otherwise true that employment in the manufacturing industries is slightly down, employees in those industries have, on the other hand, had an hourly wage increase of 3 cents an hour in 1954.
These various glimpses of our economy therefore illustrate that business in Canada is, on the whole, good; if there have been recessions in some sectors they have been compensated elsewhere by a fuller activity.
Yet I have to admit that as far as employment is concerned, the position is still difficult, and I shall try to discuss it as objectively as possible. I do not want unduly to minimize certain figures mentioned by opposition members with regard to the number of unemployed in this country, but we must admit that statistics in this respect are incomplete and do not always give a true picture of the facts.
But, whatever might be the correct number of unemployed and the nature of that unemployment, whether it be seasonal, local or otherwise, the number of unemployed is large enough to warrant the government to take without delay important legislative measures, because private industry is now unable to absorb the unemployed.
These measures, as forecast in the speech from the throne, will no doubt give to the industry the necessary priming. I would like to say a few words about some of those measures.
Public works are required to supplement private enterprise and provide here and there urgent improvements. We have to remember that the purpose of taxation is to provide services, and it is to be hoped that those public works will be soon under way. I would like here, in passing, to suggest to the government to take into consideration the building of a new bridge on the St. Lawrence river at the end of Pie IX boulevard; when I am suggesting the building of this additional bridge for Montreal, what I have in mind is the speeding up of traffic. As a matter of fact, all the traffic coming from the eastern part of the city must now go through the centre part of the town in order to cross Jacques Cartier bridge; this Pie IX boulevard bridge would link the south shore of the river with eastern Montreal, and
TMr. Deschatelets.]

would connect directly the Laurentian highway with Pie IX boulevard at St. Vincent de Paul.
But the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterways will bring about a situation which will make the building of that Pie IX bridge still more urgent. Experts of the Montreal town planning committee anticipate that, as a result of the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway, Montreal will cease to be an island town, and the south shore municipalities will lose their rural characteristics and become industrial and residential districts. We must, therefore, increase the number of bridges spanning the St. Lawrence river, and I believe that the present conditions warrant the government to build a bridge at the Pie IX boulevard without delay.
The amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act was urgently required. The duration and rate of supplementary winter benefits are increased from now on, and the working people are now in a position to appreciate fully the wisdom of that legislation; approximately 80 per cent of salaried people are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and, in case of unemployment, municipalities will not have, as before, to feel the main impact of unemployment.
This amendment to the act will be beneficial, but it will be necessary to keep a close watch on the development of our national economy in order to bring down new amendments if conditions should make it necessary, and the future will prove no doubt that this beneficial act will remain among the major achievements of the Liberal party.
May I repeat the request I made last year to the government for the opening of an unemployment insurance and employment office in the east end of Montreal in order to accommodate the workers in that part of the city.
The west, north and south ends of the city of Montreal are well served at the present time, but I do not think that the Delorimier street office in Montreal is very convenient for our workers who live in the east end of the city. Moreover the eastern part of Montreal is surrounded by small industries and the opening of such an office there would be well justified. I repeat this request and hope that it will be acted upon this very year, thus sparing me the obligation of renewing my request.
Another piece of legislation forecast in the speech from the throne and which will help relieve unemployment has to do with loans for home improvements. The National Housing Act has brought results in line with the

government's expectations, in spite of the pessimistic predictions expressed at that time by the opposition. With this important improvement, it is logical to foresee a new high for 1955.
The riding of Maisonneuve-Rosemont is perhaps among those which benefited the most from that legislation. From the projects for 1955, we can anticipate a substantial increase in house building which will turn that part of the city into one of the finest residential districts. It must be admitted that in enacting this act the government has been equal to its responsibilities and, on behalf of the thousands of new home owners of my riding who have taken advantage of that legislation, I do want to thank the government.
The speech from the throne mentions also the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers, which is now taking place in order to discuss certain common problems which are facing the peoples of that great association of nations. This conference is being held at a particularly important moment, and it will no doubt favour an exchange of views that might lead to an increase of our exports, even though it is not the immediate purpose of this meeting.
Our foreign trade is closely related to the prosperity of the Canadian people, and all efforts must be directed to the finding of new markets. But, let us be realistic, and the views expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister on January 10, 1955, are shared by the majority of Canadians. International trade must work in both directions, and, at a time when the most important nations are trying to find the way to facilitate trade, it would be suicidal to raise tariff barriers as some members of the opposition seem to want.
It is the duty of the government to organize production and to find markets. But Canadian industry also has its responsibilities, and it is up to industry to revise its means of production, in order to be able to compete with foreign goods, insofar as originality, quality and price are concerned.
I believe that the present employment difficulties in certain fields stem mainly from the lew methods of industrial adjustment and from the necessity for employers to lower their cost of production by saving on manpower.
I am satisfied that the unemployment situation is but temporary. Although the government is determined to find a solution to the iroblem, we must be grateful that it acts 50433-45i
The Address-Mr. Deschatelets cautiously, because the economy of a country is not like an automobile which can be stopped or put in motion at will. Canadian electors have shown that they understand this because at the recent by-elections they have again supported us.
Now I would like to speak about seasonal unemployment. Owing to the weather conditions in our country, we experience a shrinkage in employment every year as soon as winter sets in, but the situation improves slowly until spring.
It is not easy to find a solution to that problem. Members of the house who know the working people, who live with them, know very well that our painters, carpenters, masons, bricklayers, diggers and day-labourers may be without work for a few months each year; it is an unfortunate situation to which we should strive to find a solution. Moreover, the problem becomes more acute because several industries tend to lay off some of their employees in November and December and then hire them back towards the end of January each year.
I have studied the situation and discussed it with several workers. I believe that the practical solution rests more with the public than with the government; the time has come when everyone should realize that the government is not the only one which has a responsibility in the matter, but that it is the responsibility of the nation as a whole.
I am satisfied that, at the very moment I am speaking, work could be found in Canada for more than 100,000 unemployed if everyone assumed his share of responsibility for the solution of the problem.
It is a matter of co-ordinating the well known sense of citizenship and co-operation of all Canadians and it is in that spirit that I would like to offer a suggestion to alleviate seasonal unemployment which afflicts us and I offer it for study to both employers and organized labour.
I would like to see the setting up of an agency which would undertake, each year in January, a national eight-day employment campaign across Canada. It would surely be patronized by the Department of Labour and in all provinces, either through the press, radio or television, an appeal could be made to the public, asking everyone's co-operation to promote employment during that season.
A campaign such as this would undoubtedly receive the support of all the provincial governments as well as the wholehearted

The Address-Mr. Deschatelets support of all municipalities, and there are more than 14,000 in Canada. Since they are directly interested in promoting employment in their locality, in all those centres a proclamation by the mayor would invite all citizens to co-operate in the campaign, which would be everybody's business, as everyone would benefit from it.
We have in the country a tremendous commercial and industrial potential of over 100,000 industries of all kinds. If such a national movement were well organized, how many industries, manufactures, plants or businesses of all kinds, how many citizens, who are postponing various kinds of undertaking, even in their home, could not then become employers of labour?
And we have the necessary set-up to serve as intermediary between demand and supply, because our employment offices are scattered all over the country. The requests for labour coming from industries, business firms and private citizens would be filled by our employment offices and workers would be called to work, each according to his own skill.
Many agencies organize each year public drives to collect millions of dollars for deserving causes and their campaigns are always most successful. Why not then invite the cooperation of all Canadians to such a national employment campaign, which would no doubt be as important as all the other ones? A national employment campaign is a suggestion I make and possibly it deserves consideration.
I should now like to comment on the deplorable situation created for workers who are being rushed into retirement when they reach 65. Since I became a member of the house, I have very often had the opportunity to discuss with them and to appraise the extent of the injustice of which they are very often the victims.
Our society entertains a prejudice concerning the worker of 65 years of age, and I have noted in the papers that the British ministry of pensions carried out a survey in this matter. I believe the lessons taught by this survey would apply here as well as elsewhere.
As it appears from that survey, the majority of workers who took their pension at the age of 65, were compelled to do so at a moment when their employers were still benefiting from their energy, their good will and, especially, their experience. At that age, no doubt, physical strength wanes but any deficiency in that respect is largely offset by Knowledge and experience. We are here the

victims of a preconceived idea. As a matter of fact, some men are already old at 40, while others are still young at 65.
Would it not be possible for us to take the leadership, as far as our own civil servants are concerned, and set an example for industry to follow? And if such a survey were made here, the perpetration of a great many injustices might well be prevented.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I regret to be under the obligation to comment on certain remarks made in this house, January 12, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). These remarks were strongly objected to by members from Quebec sitting on either side of this house. I feel compelled also to object in like manner to the statement made by that hon. member, as reported at page 121 of Hansard:
...there is no part of Canada that is as ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec.
Travel broadens, we are told, and it is to be hoped that this hon. member, a new incarnation of the political commercial traveller, will take the first opportunity to return to the province of Quebec so that he might get to know it as it really is, a province securely rooted in traditions of religion, culture and hospitality and, above all, respectful of authority.
On January 17 he made an attempt to clarify his speech of January 12, stating that he had . . .
. . . the greatest regard for the religion, language, heritage and culture of the people of that province.
This clarification bears no relation, however, with the astounding statement he made on January 12, to the effect that no part of Canada was so ripe for advances by the communist party as the province of Quebec.
And that is why, on behalf of the 50,000 constituents of Maisonneuve-Rosemont whom I have the honour to represent, I indict this statement as false and I dare hope that the leader of his group will dissociate himself from this false and humiliating statement about the province of Quebec.
Since then, other unfavourable remarks have been made by members of the C.C.F. party against the province of Quebec. Nothing could be more harmful to national unity than such remarks which only serve to stir animosity and mistrust.
Last year, I asked what good purpose was served by all these speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Experience shows me now that the Canadian electorate can derive benefit from such speeches because they help remove a good number of masks and, most of all, they prove

The Address-Mr. Weselak
to the electorate that they were right in showing confidence in the Liberal party which traditionally has respected the rights of minorities in Canada and treated all groups and all provinces with fair play, not for the purpose of fostering their policies but for laying the foundations of a united and prosperous nation.
(Text):


Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the splendid contributions made by them on that occasion.
In the course of the debate we have heard members of the opposition denounce the government, and if one were to take their speeches alone one would be left with the impression that the present government had little interest in the future of Canada or the welfare of its people. I do not agree with this view and I take issue with those who adopt this attitude.
Before coming to the house I felt that the Liberal administration was doing a very good job of governing the country, and my short experience in the house has not changed my opinion in this regard. The mandate given the government in the last election by the people of Canada clearly indicates that I am not the only one of this opinion, but that many people throughout the length and breadth of the nation are of the same opinion.
This government has a responsibility to all the people of Canada with its various sectional regions and economies. It is not an easy matter to reconcile the various groups who have varying interests and whose demands upon the government are of such a conflicting nature. I submit that the policies of the government have been such that these interests and demands have been met in such a way as to keep all sections of our economy at a reasonable level.
It has been said in certain parts of the house that the throne speech is significant for what it did not contain. To me it is significant for what it did contain. The approval of the protocol for the restoration of sovereignty in West Germany and its rearmament is now history in the house. My support of this resolution was given in the belief that it was a step in the right direction and, above all, that it would demonstrate to the countries behind the iron curtain dominated by Russia that the western nations do not want to subjugate other peoples but desire to see that the peoples in these countries live democratically, with the dignity which is rightfully theirs.
The announcement of the meeting of the prime ministers of the commonwealth nations in London was also welcomed. These meetings of the commonwealth contribute toward a better understanding of the British peoples; and our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), with his wisdom and the respect which he commands both at home and abroad, will no doubt make a substantial contribution to the deliberations of that conference.
My people welcome the progress being made on the St. Lawrence seaway. We in the west, being a considerable distance from our markets and our sources of supply, are very conscious of the costs of transportation which so directly affect our economy. It has been estimated that when the seaway is built transportation rates on grain sold in the overseas markets will be reduced by 5 cents per bushel to the benefit of the producer, and it naturally follows that imports for the west will also benefit from the reduction in transportation charges.
The proclamation of the legislation providing for disability pensions, the proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Blind Persons Act, all will be welcomed by the people of my constituency. When people are in need and no provision exists at the federal or provincial level for their relief, the responsibility for their maintenance and welfare falls upon the municipality. Having been associated with municipalities for a considerable number of years, first in an administrative capacity and then in an advisory capacity, I can appreciate the relief this legislation will give to the municipalities in Manitoba.
The demand for services, particularly with respect to roads, drains and education, has increased substantially in the past few years; and the municipalities, with their restricted base of taxation, have found it increasingly difficult to provide the essential services required with the limited funds available. A town, village or municipality with half a dozen disability cases would have to provide from $4,000 up for these cases, and in their municipal budgets I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that to the average municipality this is a substantial sum of money. It is estimated that in Manitoba 1,200 people will benefit at a cost of approximately $600,000, shared equally by the provincial and federal governments.
The amendments to the Railway Act are also particularly welcome. Both transcontinental lines pass through the constituency of Springfield, and hardly a year has passed when a tragedy has not occurred. The municipalities have tried to cope with this problem, but the cost of providing safeguards has been

The Address-Mr. Weselak prohibitive. Greater federal participation in the cost of installation and maintenance may make it possible for these municipalities to provide the necessary safeguards, thus saving the lives of many people and preventing tragedy in many homes. The additional provisions regarding housing will also be of benefit in providing additional living space and the modernization of existing homes, thus contributing to the comfort and health of our people and our children.
I note that reference is made to the Meat and Canned Foods Act, and that measures are to be introduced for the inspection of meat and for the establishment of standards for agricultural products. From a reading of this portion of the speech it would appear to me that the standards referred to would be applicable at the retail or export level. At this time I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to give consideration to establishing a grading system for beef at the local marketing level similar to the rail grading of pork. The experience of my constituents has been that when deliveries to the yards are high, buyers generally offer lower prices than those usually offered when deliveries are slow and do not meet current demand. My impression was that while certain individuals did not approve the rail system of grading, yet the majority felt that this system was preferable to the existing system in regard to beef. I would therefore ask the minister and his officials to give this matter their serious consideration, and devise some system whereby this situation can be rectified.
On this occasion I wish to compliment the government, and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), on their continued confidence in our export trade and foreign sales. In the face of falling prices, a carryover the second largest in our history, and a huge surplus in the United States, the initial price of wheat was set at $1.40 per bushel, which in effect is a floor price for the 1954-55 crop year. We recall that in 1929 the Saskatchewan pool set their initial price at $1.25 per bushel, and they suffered enormous losses. These losses were guaranteed to the banks by the federal government, and in the following year the provincial governments put up security against the money lost by the western pools. In Saskatchewan alone, including interest paid, this amounted to over $20 million. At the time the initial price was set on July 16 of last year, the board held wheat unsold to the value of over $100 million and the carryover stood at over 587 million bushels.
In addition to these factors, crop conditions on the prairies were fairly good and it

appeared that a good crop would be harvested. Farmers in the west were aware of the situation and had resigned themselves to the expectation that the initial price would be substantially reduced. The announcement of the floor price came to the west as a ray of light and hope in the darkness of uncertainty which had previously prevailed. The Winnipeg Free Press, which has almost always been critical of the present system of marketing grain, had this to say on January 19, 1955:
At the same time, the west should recognize that the unchanged initial price was a hard decision to take. It may reasonably be interpreted to mean that Ottawa is genuinely confident about sales immediately ahead. But everyone is now aware that a further reduction in selling prices may become the only way to keep wheat moving out of Canada, and to reduce a surplus that certainly should not be allowed to go on piling up.
In those circumstances, it would become apparent that the wheat board was operating at a loss, which would inevitably be chargeable to the federal treasury. The taxpayers of the rest of Canada would have much to say about that. The maintenance of the initial price in this one uncertain year cannot, therefore, be taken as in any way establishing a precedent. If real disaster should come in the world wheat market, the western farmer will certainly be entitled to look for some support from the rest of the country, but he would be very foolish to expect it to be given at the level of the present initial price. The plain fact is that wheat farming represents far too large a part of the Canadian economy for any such blanket guarantee to be politically or economically practicable even if it were desirable-which, as a long-term measure, it certainly is not.
As a short-term measure, however, the stability of the initial price is, for this year's crop, a practicable policy and a legitimate means of helping the farmer through an adverse turn of circumstances. The relief of one uncertainty will make the others bearable, and everyone in the west can rejoice with the farmers that what is, in the circumstances, justice has been done to them.
On this occasion I should like to refer to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on January 19, who had this to say at page 344 of Hansard:
I say that the attitude of the Canadian government as expressed in its treatment of the wheat producers is shameful. No wonder the farmers of western Canada, through their farm unions and other organizations, are considering once again a mass movement on Ottawa to try to impress upon this anti-farm government the need to increase the support price on Canadian wheat.
I am sure that last July the hon. member expected a reduction in the initial price. I am sure that he, along with others, was relieved to find that the government had more confidence and faith in the farmers of this country than he did, and that it did not pay too much attention to the gloomy prophecies and forebodings which emanated from the socialist benches during the last session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nicholson:: Will you read it more slowly? We cannot catch it.


Anton Bernard Weselak: You cannot? Further, I do not believe the hon. member used the term "anti-farm government" seriously. If he did, I would suggest that he review the record of this government and its farm policies. I believe he would find that practically all the legislation on the statute books promoting stability in agriculture, and for the assistance jf agriculture, were put there by the government now in power. He will find also that substantial sums are expended from the federal treasury for the assistance of agriculture. All this is in addition to the sums expended by the Department of Agriculture and other departments of the government in agricultural research, and in obtaining and retaining our world markets. There are also many other policies which have been adopted and maintained by the government that have been of incalculable value to the farmers of this country.


An hon. Member:: The people of Selkirk did not think so.


Anton Bernard Weselak: The people of Springfield did, and they are next door to Selkirk.
At this time I should like also to extend a word of appreciation to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and the Minister of Agriculture for their reassuring statements concerning the government's stand in regard to the Crowsnest freight rates.
Before leaving the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) I should like to refer to another phase of his department's activities which directly affects the farm economy, and that is the matter of international trade. We must not forget that we are an exporting nation, dependent upon world markets to a considerably greater extent than many other trading countries. We must not forget that we cannot find sanctuary behind tariff walls and that we must be prepared to compete with other countries in the world markets. The minister's work at the conference called for the purpose of revising the general agreement on tariffs and trade, commonly known as GATT, where he advocated the removal of import restrictions as an essential condition to a secure and prosperous world economy, is in our interest and is to be commended.
The economic trading strength of other countries is steadily increasing as they rehabilitate themselves after the ravages of war. Surpluses in the United States threaten us, and in such a world atmosphere a better and a stronger GATT should be our goal. Reports indicate that considerable difficulty will be experienced in plugging the loopholes in GATT, particularly with the United States. With their large farm surpluses, apparently the United States insist on the right to
The Address-Mr. Weselak set import quotas and subsidize the export of farm products. The mission to Washington by three of our ablest ministers early this session to discuss these matters with United States officials was timely, and reports indicate that some progress has been made toward salvaging GATT which, early in December, appeared in jeopardy. In the interests of our economy this government is rightfully doing everything it possibly can to avert a crisis which could possibly destroy GATT, under which 80 per cent of the free world's international trade is regulated.
We are not without our own internal pressures for protective tariffs. Recently the tariff board heard requests from the manufacturers of antifreeze for an increase in protection of about 5 per cent. This board heard briefs also from the Canadian textile industry which, if given effect to, might well boost the price of men's suits by $2.50 to $5, and boost the price of finer woollens, such as women's skirts and suits, by as much as $10 a garment.
We hear complaints about the unbalance of trade with Britain and the loss of British markets. What could be more damaging, Mr. Speaker, in this connection than Britain's loss of her largest single item of export to Canada, which has provided her with an average of $30 million of Canadian currency each year? These are only two industries that have recently been openly asking for increases in protection. If increases are granted, we can surely expect others to get on the bandwagon and follow suit with similar demands.
On motion of Mr. Weselak the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we were asked about questions and notices of motions for the production of papers. We shall call those on Wednesday, if that is agreeable to hon. members.
On Friday I was asked what the order of business would be should this debate wind up. Without being too specific now, because it would appear for the moment that my appeal has been in vain, sir, we would begin with the legislation standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and particularly the bill having to do with the maintenance of international river improvements. When second reading has been given, that will be sent to the standing committee on external affairs for consideration.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 1, 1955