1956-01-16

Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house what military equipment, if any, was shipped over the week end in the Star of Assuan, and the destination of that equipment?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I have no knowledge, Mr. Speaker, of any military equipment having been shipped over the week end. I understood from my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the matter was being looked into by his department, which I presume would deal with any export permit required. I have no knowledge of the matter.



INQUIRY AS TO STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house of the position of trade negotiations with Russia which were said to have been initiated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was in Russia not long ago?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the return of my colleague, a draft trade agreement was forwarded to the Russians.
That is the last we have heard of the negotiations. Perhaps we should say that they are pending.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How long ago was that? How long has the government been waiting for a reply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About a month.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Has Canada appointed a representative to the United Nations scientific committee to study the effects of atomic radiation? If so, who is the representative?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have appointed a representative to that conference. He is Dr. Cipriani of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.



PROVISION OF NECESSARY BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he tell the house what is being done to channel the necessary box cars for wheat transportation purposes in the prairie provinces, and what are the possibilities of increasing wheat quotas in the next week or ten days?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the movement of box cars in the west has improved very considerably in the last two weeks, largely as a result of improved weather conditions. I had a letter from the president of the Canadian National Railways this morning in response to continuing correspondence I have had with him. He tells me that he has ordered that 100 new box cars be diverted to western Canada every day in addition to those going out loaded. He also points out that deliveries of new box cars will commence immediately, and all new box cars are for immediate dispatch to western Canada.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I have not the same clear indication from the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I have a general indication given me by the president [DOT]of the Canadian Pacific Railway last Saturday to the effect that they are increasing their supply of box cars in the west, and I may say that unloads at both Vancouver and Fort William indicate that there is a very considerable improvement.
As far as increased quotas are concerned, they are being announced every day. The last report I saw indicated only about one-third of the points are still on initial quota. Other points have one, two or three bushel quotas, and the changes are being made as opportunity presents itself.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? I thank the minister for the statement, because it will bring a degree of hope to the western farmers. Approximately what is the extent of the shortage of the necessary cars to transport wheat on the prairies at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not the figure here. When I spoke in Edmonton I said that there was a shortage of 10,000 box cars on the prairies below the customary number in action on that date.
I know that there are more box cars today, but I cannot say how many more.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, to satisfy the curiosity of some members on both sides of the house, I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question. Does the minister intend to introduce a bill to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act this session?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if and when a decision is reached it will of [DOT]course appear on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: May I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries? Does the government propose to enforce closure on the sockeye salmon fishing on the Canadian side of the strait of Juan de Fuca this year? If so, what steps are being taken 

to ensure that Canadian fishermen are assured of their fair share of the catch?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, since I was delayed in getting back to Ottawa by the storms in my constituency, I have not had time yet to look into this question, but I assure the hon. member that I shall look into it and bring down the answer as soon as possible.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a copy of a resolution passed by the Winnipeg city council protesting the cessation of work on the Winnipeg post office, in addition to the Deer Lodge hospital?
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) prefers the term slow-down to the term cessation, but in any event can the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) give assurance as to when the cessation or slow-down may be terminated and full construction resumed?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I have been informed there has been no cessation and that the work is proceeding just as expeditiously as possible.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Is
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) in a position this morning to answer my question regarding the statement made last week in London by his deputy minister, Mr. Laval Fortier?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have now had a chance to read the item in the newspaper to which the hon. gentleman referred on Friday last and also to read a somewhat expanded report in another newspaper. All it seems to amount to is that an effort is being made to cut down on the amount of paper work that prospective immigrants have to do. I think it is a most laudable objective for any government department anywhere. We are always trying to cut down paper work in my department.
I think perhaps 1 should say just one other word about the implication in the hon. gentleman's question to the effect that in some

way this might be something applied to the United Kingdom only. There is no such intention. Of course it is known to all hon. members that we have one regime for immigrants from the United Kingdom, France and the United States, and another regime for other countries.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). As it is now seven years since any change was made in the amount of the old age pension, does the government intend at this session of parliament to increase the amount of the pension in accordance with the increase in our gross national product?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend did not give me notice of his intention to ask this question. I can say at once that the government is giving consideration to a number of matters in the health and welfare field, one of which, as he knows, will involve a discussion with the provinces on the 23rd of this month. We have to bear in mind the over-all situation when we arrive at decisions. But no one in this house should know better than does my hon. friend who made a recommendation that there should be a continuous relation between contributions made under a partially contributory system and benefits to be paid. That was likewise the recommendation of a committee of which my hon. friend was a member, and the government bears in mind recommendations made by parliamentary committees.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 13, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Shipley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last when the debate was adjourned at six o'clock I had commenced to make certain remarks referring to the Department of National Revenue. At that time I expressed some regret that the speech from the throne made no reference to any intended changes in the Income Tax Act. At the same time I made a suggestion, which I hope the hon.
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt minister might take into consideration. I suggested that a time limit be placed on the activities of the Department of National Revenue as to the time they may go back and make reassessments on private individuals. I believe I suggested a limit of approximately two or three years. As I pointed out at that time, it is very difficult for people to keep records indefinitely and it is particularly arduous on persons who are not familiar with accounting, such as farmers and small businessmen not to mention individuals.
In this regard we all know that there are certain cases of fraud and evasion with respect to the payment of income taxes, but nevertheless I think a great majority of the reassessments that are made concern perfectly innocent mistakes. The way things are at the present time, a person virtually must have a public accountant of some kind to' keep his records. As a result most farmers and small businessmen have their income tax returns made up by persons who are not fully qualified. Very often this is done by the township clerk, a conveyancer, a real estate man or someone of that nature. As I say, these people are not always fully qualified and they make plenty of mistakes. In fact, I have heard that qualified people such as chartered accountants have made mistakes in drawing up income tax returns. If they do it I am quite sure that people less qualified are likely to do it as well.
As I pointed out, many reassessments are made on the basis of innocent mistakes. It is quite hard on a small farmer to find suddenly after a few years that he owes, on the return he made some time ago, not only a certain amount of back taxes which he did not pay but interest and sometimes a penalty. I suggest that, where there is no question of fraud or evasion, the matter of interest and penalties be dropped. Of course, this would not apply where it was a matter of fraud or evasion; but where the farmer has had his tax return made up by the township clerk it seems to me most unfair that he should be liable for considerable interest or even a penalty because of a mistake made by someone else.
There is another matter I should like to mention in connection with the Department of National Revenue, and that is the exceedingly arbitrary methods followed on occasion by the department. This seems to be increasingly so. We all realize that it would be quite impossible for the department to carry on its duties unless the onus of proof were placed on the person under suspicion to show that he was innocent. If things were

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt otherwise it would be most difficult for the department to carry on, but I think at times the department goes a little too far and I should like to cite a case which I investigated recently.
About the middle of last July a young man about 20 years of age was sleeping the sleep of the just in the house of his parents who were away on holiday. At about eight o'clock in the morning he heard a knock at the door and when he answered it he found two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as several officials of the Department of National Revenue. They had a search warrant and when they entered the house they kept the young man on one side of the room and questioned him repeatedly as to where the family kept their safe. He told them he did not know that they had a safe in the house, in fact he was quite certain they had not.
At the same time other officials of the department visited the place of business of these people and seized their books. So far everything was perfectly in order but the books of this particular business were quite extensive and when they were taken away the people in charge requested a receipt which was refused. About two months later a form of receipt came in but it was incorrect. In addition to all this, the people had to supply their own truck in order to have the books taken up to the London office of the income tax branch. It is like providing your own car for your own execution. In due course, the business required some of the correspondence taken by the department, for certain business purposes. When it asked to have this correspondence returned, it found that the department had lost it, and this caused considerable difficulty and a certain amount of expense. These books were taken last July and they have not been taken back yet. It is a great inconvenience to this business to have its books lost.
If the Department of National Revenue has to carry out investigations like this, there is no reason why it cannot photostat the records and send them back so that the business can carry on in a normal way. As I have pointed out, the Department of National Revenue has all the advantage on its side. The burden of proof is on the accused, so to speak, and not on the department. Unless some of the extreme measures such as this are checked, they are liable to continue. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If these arbitrary methods are allowed to continue unchecked, there is no telling where they might stop.
'.Mr. Nesbitt.]

I hope the minister will deny this and say it is not so, but it is my understanding that very often the department will get books from some professional man such as a doctor or dentist and keep them for some time, not for the purpose of checking on his records, but for drawing comparisons so that it can check on some other member of the same profession.
There is another matter about which there is considerable apprehension and suspicion in the minds of large segments of the public -and I hope again the minister will say this is not the case. Very often investigations of individuals are prompted by complaints that have been motivated by a purely personal dislike. I believe the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) last session referred to the income tax division's activities as the "income tax terror". In or about the year 1791, during the regime of the French revolution, known as the "red terror", people would inscribe the name of somebody they did not like on a slip of paper and put it into a box in the shape of a lion's mouth, and the people whose names were on those slips of paper were summarily arrested and guillotined the next day. I am not suggesting that the Minister of National Revenue would do anything like that, but I do say there is a general suspicion that many of these investigations are motivated by complaints arising purely out of jealousy or some personal dislike..
As I say, I hope this is not the case. In any event, many of these methods I have outlined which are employed by the Department of National Revenue-I could speak of them for a long time but I do not wish to take the time of the house in doing so-do not have any place in a democracy. I rather hope the minister will do something to cheek the zeal of some of the junior members of his department.
Having dealt with some of the omissions from the speech from the throne, I should like to deal for the next few moments with some matters which are in it. Having carefully examined the speech given by His Excellency, I am reminded of an old rhyme I have heard from my parents. This rhyrhe has to do with weddings of another day and goes something like this: "Something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue." If we were to paraphrase that rhyme, we might say that the speech had something old, nothing new, something borrowed and benefits few.
Apparently the government has borrowed a little from some of the suggestions of the other parties. The suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough),

which she has been putting forward for a number of years, has apparently been borrowed. It would also seem from the wording of the speech that the suggestion of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has made in other years regarding small loans is about to be incorporated in government policy.
However, I did not see anything in the speech from the throne making reference to any suggestions from the Social Credit party, which, of course, is rather a pity; but if you look a little more carefully you will see that during 1955 the government has been experimenting with at least one aspect of Social Credit policy. It has always been my understanding that one of the main aspects of Social Credit theory is the circulation of money and the creation of prosperity thereby. I do not think it can be said that the government was experimenting particularly with the circulation of money but I should like to suggest that possibly they have been experimenting with the circulation of at least one product, namely, cheese.
By this I mean that, so far as dollars are concerned, as fast as cheese was exported from the country it was brought back into the country in the form of imports. In this regard I should like to refer to an article in the Picton Gazette of Wednesday, January 11, 1956. The article appears on page 1 and reads as follows:
Statistics presented to the 23rd annual meeting of the Ontario cheese producers' association in Toronto showed that 6,500,000 pounds of cheese, valued at $3,500,000, were imported during 1955. In the same period 10 million pounds of Canadian Cheddar, worth just over $3 million, were exported. Included in the imports, were 5,500,000 pounds of New Zealand Cheddar. In his annual report, association president W. O. Coon said a request would he made to the federal government-
And so on. Of course, to be fair, some of these cheese imports consisted of fancy cheeses like Dutch cheese, Danish blue and others. They are included, but as far as dollar value is concerned there was more dollars' worth of cheese imported than exported. The cheese situation has been the source of very considerable annoyance to dairy farmers everywhere, particularly in Ontario.
For a moment let us see what the situation is at the present time with regard to cheese. The latest available figures respecting Cheddar cheese that I have been able to obtain are as follows: Stocks on hand on the first of January, 1955, were approximately 42,424,000 pounds. Production in Canada for 1955 amounted to 78,638,000 pounds. Production in 1955 was down a bit from 1954 when the amount was 84J million pounds, but the fall in production was no doubt due to the
The Address

Mr. Nesbitt very hot, dry summer in Ontario last year. Stocks on hand at January 1, 1955, plus cheese production for the year make a total of 121,062,000 pounds.
In order to see what stocks were on hand at January 1, 1956, the figure for 1955 consumption should be deducted and this amount, according to the latest figures I have been able to obtain, is estimated at 73 million pounds. There must also be deducted the 10 million pounds of cheddar cheese which were exported, leaving a net amount of 38,062,000 pounds. However, to this amount must be added the 5,500,000 pounds of imported New Zealand cheddar which would make the amount of the stocks on hand at January 1, 1956, approximately 43,562,000 pounds, a slightly higher amount than was on hand at the same time last year.
As hon. members will recall, it was just about this time last year that there was a lot of discussion in the house regarding imports of New Zealand cheese. At that time almost 2J million pounds of New Zealand cheese were being imported. As I recall the situation, at that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested that there would be no further imports of New Zealand cheese for six or nine months. He certainly hit the nail on the head because, as all hon. members know, about nine months later another 3 million pounds of New Zealand cheese were imported into Canada.
Now, as was mentioned at this time last year, this whole situation is ridiculous. It is like bringing coals to Newcastle and is a slap in the face to the dairy industry of Canada. This New Zealand cheese is saleable on the dock at Montreal at 26 cents a pound whereas the Canadian price is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 29 to 31 cents a pound. I say the situation is almost identical with that which existed at this time a year ago. At that time several hon. members in this house set out very completely and concisely some of the hardships that the importation of New Zealand cheese would bring for the cheese producers of Canada, and particularly the Ontario cheese producers who, as hon. members know, have an association of their own for the sale of cheese abroad.
I am not going to take up the time of the house to deal with all the arguments on this subject because they are set out in detail by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) in volume I of the 1955 session of the debates of the House of Commons, page 305. The arguments which the hon. member set out at. that time certainly apply today. As has been pointed out, the cheese industry is only one aspect of the dairy industry, but what affects the cheese industry certainly affects
124	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt other things such as butter. Apparently butter is having its own problems, but that is a matter which will be dealt with by other hon. members in the course of this debate.
On this whole question of dairy products, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the government is not giving the leadership it should. It is standing by with folded arms and allowing things to slip. Farm groups have become exceedingly aggravated over this cheese question. What can the government do? I submit that the government can do one of two things. They could either raise the tariff on cheese or adopt another procedure open to them with which I shall deal in just a moment.
Now, farm groups have become very upset over this situation, and the result is that I received a resolution from the Oxford county federation of agriculture which I should like to read. The resolution is as follows:
Be it resolved that the Ontario and Canadian Federations of Agriculture make emphatic representation to the federal government asking the imposition of a tariff duty upon all imports of cheese, milk powder and other dairy products equivalent to the protection granted other industries and sufficient to allow producers of dairy products an equitable share of the national income.
I can see why the federation of agriculture would send in a resolution like that. The present one cent tariff on cheese accomplishes nothing. It certainly does not protect the dairy industry and it certainly does not provide much revenue, so I really cannot see what the purpose of the one cent duty on cheese is. I know quite well, at least we have always heard, that the present government is not interested in raising tariffs. In fact, we are told it is rather more interested in lowering them, so the government may not wish to raise the tariff on cheese. Whether or not they should may be another matter, but I do not think they will want to do it.
I would suggest there is another procedure open to the government to check further importation of New Zealand cheese into Canada. This procedure was very concisely set out last session by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) on page 334 of the debates of the House of Commons for the 1955 session, volume I. The procedure outlined by the hon. member on that occasion has to do with the use of the Export and Import Permits Act. On one or two occasions last year I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) intimated that this act had no application to cheese, but in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac I believe that possibly the minister might be mistaken. Perhaps the government has the necessary machinery set
[Mr. Nesbitt.)

up to bring the importation of cheese under the Export and Import Permits Act. I feel that before this debate is finished some statement should be forthcoming either from the Minister of Trade and Commerce or from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).
The dairy farmers of Ontario and the cheese producers association of Ontario have a right to know what, if anything, the government is going to do. It must be remembered that Ontario produces three-quarters of the Cheddar cheese produced in Canada. If something is not done at once the farmers who produce cheese and other dairy products are going to suffer. As I said before, I hope that before this debate is completed we will have a statement of policy from either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address. I was particularly impressed with both speeches; both were excellent. When the mover of the address turned her attention to northern Ontario, her burst of eloquence about that great territory thrilled me. I am sure all of the people of northern Ontario appreciated her remarks about her constituency.
This debate has taken an extraordinary turn, one which I find it hard to believe. The speech from the throne was brought down at a time when the Canadian economy is travelling in the highest possible gear. Everything and every resource is stretched to the limit. My department is concerned with finding enough steel to keep the economy rolling in the face of a world shortage of steel. The world is short of nickel, of copper, of aluminium, and a shortage is developing very rapidly in newsprint. In order to maintain progress and maintain employment, these problems require everyday attention.
Now, the debate has turned on surpluses, and what are those surpluses? They are wheat and butter, although cheese was mentioned today. I can relieve the minds of hon. members about cheese. I have been informed several times by my office that there is not sufficient matured cheese available for export to enable us to fill our quota in the British market, which is a valuable market for fully matured Cheddar cheese, which product commands a substantial premium in that market. Therefore, let us not talk about a surplus of cheese. However, it is interesting to see that the hon. member who mentioned cheese is devising ways of accentuating

a shortage. In other words, if we could have a greater shortage of cheese, everything would be wonderful.
This has been the attitude of the opposition to the supply problem. Shortages are wonderful, to be solved by simply denying their existence. We sat in this house all during last July when speaker after speaker would get up and say that there were no shortages.
I would indicate that even then there were shortages of steel, of nickel, of aluminium and of other materials. But this was denied by the opposition. What was the purpose of keeping us here during the month of July? It was to prevent the government from getting authority on a reasonably long-term basis to deal with the materials in short supply and to allocate those materials to the best advantage of the Canadian economy.
Let us return to the surpluses we have. There could have been no debate, I am afraid, if the weather had taken a different turn. If we had had a very dry spring and a very dry early summer, instead of a very wet spring and a very wet early summer, we would have had no surplus of either wheat or butter. We would have been about on balance in wheat, and butter would have been in short supply. The Conservatives, the C.C.F. and the Social Crediters would have said this is wonderful; we have no surpluses, and without surpluses I do not know what the discussion on the speech from the throne could have been. However, we have a surplus of wheat, and already it has been attacked. We must do away with this surplus. The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we immediately adopt the soil bank plan of the United States government. I suppose he thought that that would be a new plan. We in Canada invented the soil bank plan back in 1941. At that time we had an accumulation of wheat which resulted from the dislocations of war, the sinking of ships in the Atlantic and our inability to supply wheat, even though countries overseas were very anxious to obtain it. At that time we instituted the soil bank plan. We paid our producers to take their acreage out of wheat and put it into coarse grains or summerfallow. As a result of that policy, we reduced acreage in wheat from 27J million acres in 1940 to 16 million acres in 1943, a reduction of 11J million acres. During the year 1955 only about 20 million acres are planted to wheat, which is a reduction of 7 J million acres planted to wheat since 1940.
Well, we should plant at least 20 million acres of wheat. I believe that our economy requires production to that extent. I will admit at once that if we get five more wet
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe years in succession, 20 million acres of wheat will produce an accumulating surplus in this country. But I think I have lived in the western country, and I think many other hon. members have lived in western Canada, long enough to know that never before in the history of western Canada have we had five very wet years in succession. Therefore,
I reject the soil bank plan or any other plan destined eventually to place wheat in the deficit column. If we cannot keep wheat supplies in balance, let us have a surplus of wheat, but let us never adopt a policy that can produce less wheat than our markets will take.
It has been said that the reason for the surplus is that exports have not been up to standard; that the government has been lax in not exporting sufficient wheat to take care of the western situation. Let us examine the levels of exports. We will go back to the good years when everyone was quite happy about wheat, when the farmers were happy, and when we had a situation that seemed to call for no criticism. We will go back to 1947-48. In that year we exported 195 million bushels of wheat; in 1948-49 we exported 232 million bushels of wheat; in 1949-50 we exported 225 million bushels of wheat; in 1950-51 we exported 241 million bushels of wheat. In other words, the average export for those four very satisfactory years was 223 million bushels per year.
Now, let	us look at the	last	four crop years.In 1951-52	we	exported	355	million	bushels;in 1952-53	we	exported	385	million	bushels;in 1953-54	we	exported	255	million	bushels;
and in 1954-55 we exported 252 million bushels, an average of 312 million bushels of wheat exported from Canada per year. It is rather interesting that in not one of the good years were the exports as large as exports during the least satisfactory export year in the past four years. Last year we exported 252 million bushels of wheat. We have heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) talk that kind of nonsense about a drop in exports and suggest methods that we should adopt to correct the situation. He is quite willing to advise us on that point. But never in any of the years from 1947 to 1950 did we export as much as we exported last year.
I could go into the deliveries, which mean more to the farmers than exports. They are of more immediate importance to him. In the war years, when we had a sellers' market, when we could export anything we could produce, beginning with 1940 and going through 1944, the average deliveries by farmers to country elevators amounted to 326 million bushels a year. In the next years, 1945
126	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe through 1949, the five-year average was 286 million bushels marketed. In the last five years-1950 through 1954-a yearly average of 415 million bushels of wheat were marketed by farmers. Perhaps I should give the house the figures for all grains, including wheat, oats, barley and other grains. In the five-year period, 1940 through 1944, the total marketing of all grains averaged 492 million bushels. The five-year average from 1945 through 1949 was 456 million bushels. In the five years from 1950 through 1954, the average was 656 million bushels.
We have had a great deal of advice as to how this wheat should be sold. We are told how our methods are antiquated; that the world has been moving ahead of us and that we should adopt methods of other countries in disposing of our wheat. We have had a great number of references to bartering and to selling for local currencies. What is the purpose of bartering? Barter was used centuries ago before money was invented. But today the only purpose of barter is to give a customer through barter a deal which you would not give him for dollars. The same is true of local currency. The reference is not to local currencies that we could bring back to Canada. You sell for local currencies and you leave the local currencies in the purchasing country. That is the method that has been used where wheat is sold for local currency. In other words, a form of giveaway, and the give-away usually represents up to 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the value of the wheat. These are also direct giveaways. Hon. gentlemen know we give away wheat when there is an urgent need for wheat. We have given wheat to several countries when, as a result of disaster, or crop failure, that sort of gift was a desirable procedure.
However, I wish I could persuade hon. gentlemen-it seems obvious to me-that we must treat all our customers alike. If we give wheat to one customer, barter wheat with another customer to his advantage, or accept local currencies from a third customer, then to expect to get cash from a fourth customer is of course absolutely untenable. I can give a very good illustration of that point. Two years ago the United States started their five-point plan Eor disposing of wheat. In that year about 41 per cent of their wheat exports went under programs involving give-away. Last year me of the official reports of the department )f agriculture stated that 66 per cent of their wheat exports went out under the five-point program. I have seen predictions that this pear practically 100 per cent of their wheat exports will go out under the five-point pro-

gram. There is a law of economics that I am sure most of us remember. It is called Gresham's law. That law goes back even longer than I have lived, by about two centuries. Gresham's law is that a bad currency will drive out a good currency.
That is exactly what has happened to the United States in marketing wheat. The bad currencies are those deals which sell wheat at less than its value in good currency. The result is that our competitor can no longer sell wheat in exchange for good currency. Here we have a perfect example of the working out of Gresham's law, so far as the wheat marketing operation is concerned.
I could go on at further length and talk about sales for local currency or through barter deals. I think the idea of sales for local currency should be pretty well ended by a statement made in Winnipeg by a high officer of the British high commissioner's office when he stated that if we accepted pounds sterling for wheat we would not sell one more bushel of wheat to the United Kingdom. We shall therefore not pursue that matter further.
I now come to the point at issue. We have surpluses of wheat in Canada. The delivery position was particularly aggravated this year owing to the fact that our sales in the early part of the marketing year were much below those of a year ago. What was the reason for that situation? The reason was that there was no confidence abroad in the pricing of wheat in North America. Everyone expected that, since the United States was depending on their five-point program to export wheat, Canada would be forced to do something similar, or at the very least would be forced to cut prices drastically.
The situation was further aggravated by the bearish propaganda that went out from Canada itself. Every time I would read a speech by an opposition member using extreme language about our surplus wheat, I would say to myself, "I wonder what that speech is going to cost the producer of western Canada". Every time we would get resolutions from the boards of trade in the various wheat areas, we would say to ourselves: "That postpones buying some more". But the fact of the matter is that up to the first of November there was no forward buying of Canadian wheat. When a boat was under the grain elevator spout, the buyer would buy wheat to put in that particular boat, but our advance sales were woefully deficient up to that date.
Then apparently everyone began to believe that Canada was going to maintain a price, because orders started to come in. I have never before in my experience seen buying as active and as steady as it has been since

November 1. True, our exports are behind exports of a similar date last year, and it will probably be about March before we can pass the record of exports of last year. The reason for that is that at this season we have to bring our grain out through the winter ports, a process which is much slower than when the St. Lawrence is open. However, we are selling wheat.
I told the farmers in western Canada, when I spoke to several gatherings there, that exports were down at that time but I predicted that exports would pick up later in the year. That is what is happening. I went to western Canada for one reason only, namely to see just what the situation was there and the extent to which it could be remedied. In Regina I spoke to the delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I said that I spoke. I might say those sessions last all day and everybody speaks. I was just one of many speakers. I attended the meeting of the Alberta wheat pool delegates, and I also attended the annual meeting of the farmers' union at Edmonton. Prior to that visit, and because of the lack of early marketing possibilities, I made up my mind that something should be done to assist the farmers-and particularly the small operators-to finance themselves until marketing could return to normal. I recommended to the government that the system of loans that was used in 1951 be made available again this year. Other plans were considered very carefully at that time. We considered as to whether loans could be made through country elevator agents. We found insurmountable obstacles. Loans made by chartered banks are protected by the Bank Act, which is a federal act. Loans made in any other way, except through the banks, would have little or no security. Grain on the farm comes under the heading of property and civil rights, which is a matter for the province. A government lien on grain on the farm would have to take second place to tax liens, and would be on a par with liens put on by implement dealers or suppliers of any other kind. That matter was explored thoroughly. The government decided the only practical way to handle the matter would be to arrange guaranteed loans from the chartered banks.
It has been said that the interest rate is too high at 5 per cent. I have been a borrower from banks all my life, and I have never yet succeeded in borrowing money from a bank at less than 5 per cent. I know of many periods in my life when, if the government had guaranteed my bank loan, it would have relieved me of a great deal of stress and strain. I therefore cannot be too greatly concerned about objections to guaranteed loans bearing an. interest rate of 5 per cent.
The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe
Recently there has been a great drive for advances on farm-stored grain. The suggestion has been for three-quarters of the value of the grain to be advanced by the wheat board. Many hon. members may think that the inspiration for that suggestion came from the farms. I can assure you there has been nothing of the kind. It came from the cities. If I had time, I could quote chapter and verse to that effect. Who are its supporters? The supporters are the enemies of marketing through the wheat board.


Mr. Nicholson:: You have all the time you want.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I have only ten minutes more. Which are the two newspapers that are advocating the advances on wheat stored on the farm? One is the Winnipeg Free Press and the other is the Financial Post. The Winnipeg Free Press is a great newspaper, but its declared policy has been for many years to do away with marketing through the wheat board and to return to marketing through the grain exchange. As far as the Financial Post is concerned, it too has followed a consistent policy of attempting to end the marketing of western wheat through the wheat board.
Now, let us examine the position of the wheat board. In every market where Canadian grain is sold I think you will find people who will tell you that the ablest grain marketing organization in the world is the Canadian wheat board. The chairman of the board has been in the service of the government for 25 years, his duties associated solely with the marketing of western grain. Associated with him are three very able men who share in the work of the board. I can tell the house that, if the government instructed the wheat board to lend money on farm-stored grain and assume the responsibility for the lending of that money and its subsequent collection, the four members of the wheat board would be out of office within a matter of days.


Mr. Argue:: You made them handle box cars against their wishes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member made his speech; may I have the next turn. It must be remembered that the money administered by the wheat board is the farmers' money. It is not the board's money, it is not the government's money. True, we provide a bank guarantee to give the board borrowing powers, but the board administers the farmers' funds, and is responsible to the producers for those funds. I have had experience in handling other people's money and I know that if you are going to

The Address-Right Hon. C. D. Howe do that successfully you must be very careful about your commitments. I have been handling other people's money for 40 years, and I have reason to know whereof I speak.
You must be careful about lending on grain where only limited security can be had. The grain on the farm would be the only security the board would have. It may be said that the farmer would have to market the grain and bring it to the country elevator eventually, when the board would be able to recover its loan; but I suggest that the farmer does not necessarily have to bring it to the country elevator. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) threatened us with the situation where the farmer would refuse to do that and would feed the grain on his farm. It is perfectly legal for a farmer to sell grain to another farmer within the province. If any of these things happened the board would have no effective recourse. It is true the board would have a lien on the grain, but after the grain has been consumed it would be pretty difficult to execute the board's lien. It is not a lien that takes priority over anything, rather it is a lien that is secondary to other claims.
An effective means of taking security on farm stored grain would be just impossible to work out, and I think the people who started the propaganda knew that, and saw its possibilities as a means of destroying the wheat board. I am sure that that is the case. Why would the Financial Post advocate loans on farm-stored grain except as an effective means of destroying the wheat board?


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the delegates?


John George Diefenbaker: That is nonsense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us look at the position of the delegates. A resolution was presented to the annual meeting of the united grain growers, one of the oldest cooperative societies in western Canada advocating that loans be made by the wheat board against farm-stored grain, and that resolution was defeated almost unanimously, and with very little discussion. Practically the same resolution was presented to the delegates meeting of the Alberta wheat pool, and it was defeated. The same resolution went before the delegates of the Manitoba wheat pool, was passed at one session, was reconsidered at the next session and modified to ask for loans on farm-stored grain only provided suitable arrangements could be made by the Canadian wheat board.
True, it was passed at the meeting of the delegates of the Saskatchewan pool. Unfortunately I have no way of knowing just what


happened, but I was told it was passed by a small margin and after a heated discussion between those for the resolution and those opposed to it.
A favoring resolution was passed by the three farmers' unions, but I must say that at the meeting of the farmers' union which I attended a resolution was presented asking for a vote of confidence in the Canadian wheat board which was passed unanimously, except for one vote in opposition.
In other words, the attitude of the farmers' unions is something like the attitude of the C.C.F. party in this house: that party is in favour of the wheat board but, and the "but" is always there. I have never heard a clean-cut statement from the C.C.F. party that it is unreservedly in favour of the wheat board. I read a clipping of a speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in which it was reported that he said that when he came down here he would put a motion before the house that would make the Liberals stand up and be counted regarding their attitude toward loans on farm-stored grain. I am not worried about the attitude of my fellow Liberals, because I know that the Liberal party favours the present methods of marketing wheat and I am pretty sure that our members on the Liberal side will see through the propaganda drive which is behind the demand for advances on farm-stored grain.
I will be most interested to see how the opposition will respond to that demand that they stand up and be counted. I know how a few of them will, particularly the Conservatives. I think I have them pretty well sorted out as to who believes in wheat board marketing and who does not.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the western farm conference in December attended by the ministers of agriculture of two of the western provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member referring to the meeting he organized in Prince Albert or the meeting in Regina or Saskatoon?


John George Diefenbaker: I am referring to the Saskatoon meeting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Saskatoon meeting and the Prince Albert meeting were attended by certain pool leaders, certain implement manufacturers and certain citizens of the towns attended. As far as the Saskatoon meeting is concerned, I did not see any advocacy there of payments on farm-stored grain, although my memory may have slipped. Certainly at the Prince Albert meeting we had a ringing declaration by the



IB, 1956

[Stage Direction]
city boys who could hardly wait to get at that $500 million of prospective loans to farmers.
John George Diefenbaker: I would like the minister to answer this question. Did the western farm conference in Saskatoon, which was attended by the minister of agriculture of the Liberal government of Manitoba and other representatives, not send a delegation to Ottawa, which included representatives of the Liberal party, to ask for farm-stored wheat advances, and did not Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, say that your plans were as effective as a stirrup pump in a forest fire?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This delegation came to Ottawa from the Saskatoon conference and my colleagues will confirm the impression that we got from that meeting at Ottawa that there were two or three delegates present who advocated payments on farm-stored grain, but there were certainly those who advocated just the opposite. I will get together all my records of the Saskatoon meeting because we will have further discussion of this subject. I will be able to answer the questions of my hon. friend during the debate which will take place on the legislation.
We are told that the prairies are in a desperate plight, that if something is not done immediately there is going to be a serious drop in buying power on the prairies which will be reflected in eastern Canada and thus we will soon have another depression. I was able to get from the bureau of statistics only the records of retail sales on the prairies for the first nine months in 1955 as compared with the first nine months in 1954. I find that in Manitoba retail sales were up 4-3 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Alberta retail sales were up by 6-4 per cent.


An hon. Member:: That cannot be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Saskatchewan retail sales were down by 1-7 per cent.


An hon. Member:: We can understand that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Incidentally, there is no change in the price level between those years. I have no desire to disparage the position of the producers. A certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty this past season, and the purpose of the guaranteed loan was to relieve those smaller producers. I was told several times, mostly by city people, that it was ridiculous to offer $1,500 and that that was chicken feed. I am not interested in the man who thinks $1,500 is chicken feed. That particular loan 67509-9
The Address-Mr. Bryce was intended to relieve that situation. As far as the long term situation is concerned, it seemed to me it was a hardship on the western farmer that he should be required to pay the carrying charges at the level required when grain storage is filled for practically 12 months in the year. Apart from that, it did not seem to me that there was any particular burden on the farmer through this condition of plenty.
However, the carrying charges, which used to run at between eight and 10 cents a bushel, went up last year to 16 cents a bushel and could go as high as 20 cents a bushel. That is a burden on the farmer for doing something that is in his own interests and also in the interests of the country as a whole, for it is greatly in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole that we should have orderly marketing of western wheat, and that the full value of that wheat should be recovered through our marketing methods. Therefore, on my return from the western trip, I recommended to the government that the farmer be relieved of a substantial part of the cost of storage involved by the carryover of wheat, that the government take that over and pay carrying charges on the abnormal portion of the carryover of wheat held in storage for government account. That, I think, is reasonable, in these circumstances, and we shall go into that proposal in more detail as we reach the bill presently on the order paper.
I see that my time is exhausted. I might sum up by putting the attitude of the opposition and the attitude of the Liberal party in a few short words. I think it can be fairly said that the attitude of the opposition is that they seek strength and progress through scarcity; as long as there is scarcity they are quite satisfied, and everything is fine. The attitude of the government is that it wants strength and progress through sufficiency. Even if planning for long-range sufficiency involves building up temporary surpluses, we shall take the onus for that program. We shall endeavour to see that hardship is not permitted to fall on the producer, but we are glad to have surpluses, particularly at a time when, in so many areas, we have acute shortages that hold within themselves the seeds of inflation.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I wish, like other members, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I know that it is a great honour to be bestowed on a member, and I am sure the people who sent them here will appreciate the honour that has been bestowed on them.
130	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bryce
I wish to raise the problem of the Disabled Persons Act as it is administered in Manitoba. Many disabled persons there are not receiving the benefits of that act. I took this matter up with the genial minister some time ago, and he said that 2,200 people had applied for it in Manitoba, but only 371 people had been granted the pension. Six hundred and seventy people had applied but had been refused, and another 1,000 or 1,500 people had applied but their applications had not been dealt with.
I could take you to the constituency of Selkirk and show you people who can hardly walk along the street. They are not able to earn their bread and butter, but still they have been turned down because they are able to walk. It is misleading to have a Disabled Persons Act when it does not help the people who are disabled and who should be looked after. I am going to appeal again to the government and to the minister that they speed up this matter and see that those who are entitled to this allowance receive it.
Now I wish to talk about conditions in the Selkirk constituency, the interlake country. I have listened to my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) telling us today about the great crops we have. In my constituency of Selkirk we have nothing. I told the Prime Minister last year that there would be people starving in Selkirk constituency, and he said that would not be the case. I can assure him it is the case today. People are leaving the interlake district because they cannot get enough to eat. They are crowding into the cities. If a community does not have a crop for one year, it is a catastrophe; but, when it does not have a crop for two years, it is a disaster. The dominion government should step in and do a little for these people.
I said that the people are leaving the interlake district. My good friend, the Minister of Justice ( Mr. Gar son) knows that what I am saying is true. He has been up there, and I wish he had told the government more about it. He saw the conditions in which these people were living. A survey was made last October at Teuton, about 40 miles from Winnipeg, and it was fopnd that about 60 people were leaving every morning to go to Winnipeg to dig sewers or do other work so that they could get bread and butter for their tables. I do not know how far you are going to let this go before you do something for these people. These people are not wheat farmers, about whom you hear other members talking; they are just ordinary dirt farmers who keep a few cows and cultivate a quarter section of land. Many farmers who had cattle have had to sell them. This survey was taken in Teulon, but the other districts
[Mr. Bryce.l

surrounding it, at about the same distance from Winnipeg, are in the same position. I could not give you accurate figures for them, but a survey should be taken. These people who had cattle have very few left now because when the disaster first struck they sold a few head in order to keep going, and since then they have been continually getting rid of more all the time. They are not going to have any cattle left, and it is their cattle on which they depend. They depend on their cattle for the production of cream which brings in enough cash to supply them with the necessities of life.
The provincial government has been concerned with the matter but the provincial officials always tell me that the dominion government is not doing anything and that when they do something the provincial government will step in and help too. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke he referred to mass meetings. There have been many mass meetings in the interlake country, some of them having as many as 500 farmers in attendance. These meetings were not called by any political party. They were called by the rank and file farmers with the support of the municipalities in which they live. These farmers want to know what is going to happen so far as they are concerned.
What does the provincial government offer them? They say that they will try to provide work and wages. How are they going to do that? They say to these farmers, "Well, you can go to the bush." How can a man who has a few head of cattle and other stock go to the bush? The bachelors can go and those farmers who do not do anything but grow grain. The provincial government also said they would pay for the trucking of hay into the districts where it is needed. They said they would pay for the trucking of the hay. What I want to know is, who is going to pay for the hay? These people have no money to buy hay so very little trucking of hay is going on. Mr. Robertson, the minister of agriculture for Manitoba, said to these farmers: "You can go to your municipality and get relief at 6 per cent."
That is the position in which these farmers in Selkirk find themselves. I know what the federal government did. They sent a man to the district to survey the damage to the farms and as a result paid the farmers so much money for damage to their buildings. The farmers of the interlake country do not care what their farms look like. They want to be able to get back into production again. They want to be able to produce cattle because conditions there are really bad.
I want to say something about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as it affects these people.

I have a resolution here that I am going to read. The interlake farmers come under the P.F.A.A. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows how much money has been paid there. He has paid out more money there than he ever did before but it has only been a drop in the bucket. Then there is the case of the man who bought crown land. If he bought crown land after the 31st of December, 1940, the law says he cannot participate in P.F.A.A. benefits. But here is the hard thing. He has to pay into the fund. Last year the minister said in the house that these men have paid about $300,000 into the fund. I do not know what would happen if any private company or individual took money from people for such a purpose and then refused them the benefits of it. That is what is happening. These farmers have paid $300,000 into the fund but they have never got anything back and the law says they cannot get anything back. I bet that if anybody else did that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would have the person on the carpet right away. I know he would not let me, any co-operative society or anybody else do it. Money is being taken from these people for benefits that they can never be paid.
I have a resolution here from the Manitoba farmers' union, Fisher Branch, one of the districts that has been pretty badly hit. It contains an appeal on behalf of these people who bought crown lands. When these men came back from the war we were delighted to have them take up farming, but now they have had two or three bad years and the first thing we know they will leave their farms and go back where they came from. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the farmers who bought land from the government after 1940 are not able to participate in the P.F.A.A. assistance and as these farmers contribute into this fund when they deliver grain to any elevator and as these farmers are in a desperate need of assistance in this area;
Be it resolved that we urge the government to consider these needy fellows and bring them into the P.F.A.A. program so they may participate in the assistance along with the other farmers.
I appeal to the minister to give this matter further consideration when he brings the act before the house for revision. If he even granted assistance for this year until times get a little better it would be of tremendous benefit to these people.
In my opinion many eastern members and others who do not know the situation think that when a person receives P.F.A.A. assistance he is getting a lot of money. Some of the cheques that have been arriving in the Eriksdale district have been for $5, $7, $20 and so on. The same is true of the Arborg district. How it is computed that a man should only receive $5 or $7 as a payment 67509-9J
The Address-Mr. Stick for his year's operations I do not know. I think there should be a survey of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The whole operation of the legislation should be investigated. During the recess I spent half my time answering letters and dealing with Mr. Bird, the director at Regina, with respect to P.F.A.A. applications. The districts hardest hit are Fisher Branch, Eriksdale, Arborg, Riverton and even some of the sections farther south such as Teulon, Woodlands and Petersfield. They have all been badly hit.
There is no use of my going over the whole matter again, but I want to make a suggestion before I sit down. Our troubles in the west seem to arise from the fact that we have too much grain. Then send some of it to Selkirk. We need feed, we need seed, and there seems to be an abundance. I have not seen it myself but I have seen photographs in the newspapers of wheat standing out in the field. The people of the interlake country have had no crop for two years. They need seed and they need feed so that they will not have to sell more cattle. I do not know how much plainer I can make the situation. It is a desperate one, and I hope that the Manitoba member of the cabinet will help me to impress upon the other members of the cabinet how serious the situation is. The interlake country has met with a disaster such as it never had before. There have been two years during which there has been no crop. I want the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to give consideration to extending the P.F.A.A. benefits to those who have paid into it. If a man is not to receive the benefits, then do not take his money. I hope the cabinet will send somebody out there, and they will see that I am telling the truth in this house. They will see how serious the situation is. Then, we could ship in feed and seed to these people who so badly need it.


Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: May
I be privileged, Mr. Speaker, with other members in this house who have preceded me, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address.
I do so with the knowledge that to speak in this house, particularly at the opening of the session, is an ordeal through which many people have gone and one which they have carried out with a great deal of distinction to themselves and to this house.
Before beginning my main theme today I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), for whose opinions I have always had a great deal of respect. He referred to the large iron ore deposits which we have in Newfoundland

The Address-Mr. Stick and Labrador. In the course of his remarks he said this at pages 56 and 57 of Hansard for January 12, 1956:
In the field of trade we find that many significant decisions concerning Canadian economic life are made outside of Canada, that many Canadian firms which are subsidiaries of United States companies buy in the United States from their parent companies or buy from firms with which their United States parent has also entered into contracts, thus placing obstacles in the way of the diversification of Canadian trade.
Should we then not insist that more of our own resources should be used in this country? Not long ago I read in the Montreal Gazette a statement made by John C. Doyle, president of Canadian Javelin, which referred to what he called the most valuable and largest iron ore deposit in the world in Labrador. He referred to talks which were going on between the company and United States steel and iron ore interests, and he seemed to suggest that it would be only a matter of time until the company was taken over lock, stock and barrel, as he put it, by United States concerns.
Of course we know what will happen. This iron ore will go down on the railways which are being built to the sea, it will be put into ships and go to the United States.
We have had these iron ore deposits in Labrador for countless ages. We know that Canada is not in a position to digest these large deposits of iron ore, and the question arises, what are we going to do with them? Well, we cannot eat them. It has been suggested also in this house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and I have commended him for it, that we give away the great surplus of wheat that we have to the hungry people. As a practising Christian, I cannot take exception to that proposition. Well, we have friends and we have allies who need our raw materials. If we cannot digest our raw materials at the present time I think we have a duty also to our allies to see that they get the raw materials for which their economy is so badly in need.
I am not so concerned about foreign capital coming into Canada to help us with the development of our natural resources. One need only picture the oil situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It needed not only United States capital but United States know-how to develop it. If we took a selfish attitude regarding our natural resources, what would have happened to the oil in those provinces? May I say also that of this iron ore which we have there and which we want to put to use, according to the latest information I have, two or three million tons will be going to our allies in Europe to help their economies.
I am not concerned so much about what capital comes in to develop our natural resources, as I am with the fact that we should develop them. When the time comes that Canada needs these natural resources this government, or whatever government is in power, will see that Canada gets her share

first. I think that policy has been enunciated in this house for three or four years. I am not concerned so much, therefore, with whether United States capital or any other capital comes into this country as I am with the development of the natural resources we have and putting them to the best use to which they can be put.
We have heard a great deal about wheat in this country. We shall hear more about the wheat situation and the plight of the farmers in the west with whom we all sympathize. I believe a way will be found to help the farmers and relieve them of some of the burdens they are carrying. I am sure that those of us who do not belong to the west will sympathetically receive any reasonable proposition which comes before this house to alleviate any distress in the western provinces. We are not one-section Canadians in this house, we are Canadians. What affects one part of this country affects the other part.
In connection with these very large iron deposits which we have in Labrador, may I say also that we have the largest hydroelectric potential of any part of the world. I refer to the Hamilton river-Grand Falls hydroelectric potential. It may be news to members in this house that a very large British concern, allied with other British concerns, has spent several million dollars in investigating this hydroelectric potential. We have these huge iron ore deposits, and we have other mineral deposits. Right alongside of them we have this wonderful hydroelectric potential which we want to put to use. If we develop our iron ore deposits, we will develop the hydroelectric energy sufficient to run those mines.
We are concerned in Newfoundland to see that this development takes place, and that it goes forward as speedily as possible. It may be news also to some members who have advocated our natural resources in Canada that for the last 50 years we have been exporting iron ore from Bell island to European countries of some 2-5 million tons and a half million to Dominion Steel in Nova Scotia and the balance goes overseas. I have mentioned this in order to bring to the attention of the house that we have a large potential in natural resources which we want to develop and which we wish to develop in the best interests of Canada and the people of our province. In this way we hope to achieve a diversification of our economy and allow our people to get the work they so badly need.
I turn now from quoting the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to a few remarks made by the hon. member for

Macleod (Mr. Hansell) which are found on page 62 of Hansard for January 12, 1956. The hon. member made his usual witty and entertaining speech, and referred to the situation out west. He used these words:
In a nutshell the problem is this. Here are six loaves of bread and here are six hungry men with no money in their pockets.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is a brother divine. I was rather disappointed -when he mentioned the six loaves of bread -that he did not say anything about the little fishes. I am sure he knows the scriptures, and the lesson which we have read so many times, namely, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. He will remember that that lesson refers to bread and fish; it was not bread alone. In that lesson our Lord demonstrated that what the people needed was a balanced diet. That brings me to my theme, the purpose for which I am speaking here today, namely, the fisheries of Canada.


Mr. Winters:: Very good.


Leonard T. Stick: There are two main primary producers in this country, the farmers and the fishermen. We have heard a lot about the problems of our friends on the farm, but we do not hear overmuch about the problems of the fishermen. Newfoundland was discovered some 450 odd years ago, and it was discovered because of the great wealth which was found in the sea around our coast. We may say that today the fisheries are our national economic problem. It is our national industry; it has always been so and it is still so today. Anybody who knows anything about the sea knows that the fisherman's life is not a rosy one. It is a life of hazard and a gamble, when he has to go out day by day and night by night seeking a living on the face of the water.
Many years ago a bank manager was transferred from the west to St. John's, Newfoundland, and he made a remark something like this. He found it far more difficult to make advances to fish merchants than to farmers when he was in western Canada because when he made his advance on the prospective wheat crop and other grains he could see those grains growing, but when he made advances to a fish merchant he could not see the fish in the sea. According to his story, he was taking greater risks making advances to fish merchants than when he was lending money to farmers. That is true. Our men take chances. Our men go out in their big boats, and a great majority of them in small boats. They go out day by day, and they do not know whether they
The Address-Mr. Stick are going to get a catch of fish or not; but they go. They take the chance; they take all the risks involved in storms and stress of weather which can destroy their fishing gear overnight. They may have very little to show for their day's toil. This has been going on for many centuries in Newfoundland. Therefore, it may be said that our people live by faith, faith in divine Providence to give them the blessings of the harvest of the sea.
Newfoundland has been described as a land of hope and tragedy. I think there is a lot of truth in that also. We have had many tragedies in Newfoundland, but we have always had hope.
As I have said, this has been going on for hundreds of years. Our fishermen now find themselves in the position where it is very difficult for them to replace their equipment owing to the high cost of replacement. It is true that a few years ago we had a depression in our fishing industry. At the present time things are looking a lot better. The high cost of replacement is something about which our fishermen have to worry, and rightly so. As I said, they go out and they produce. They are one of the primary producers of this country. They accept all the hazards of their calling. They look around and they see the products which they have brought in being processed in the processing plants which we have around our coast and which we hope to expand, and they see the workers in those plants qualifying for unemployment insurance. They who have produced the wherewithal to give work to these people are denied this privilege. I go around my riding year after year and I speak to hundreds of our men and our women, too. They say to me: "Mr. Stick, why can we not get the benefits of unemployment insurance?" I say to them: "It is not an easy thing to bring about; there are great difficulties in the way." I hope that in time, after a proper study is made, our fishermen may have the benefit of the system of unemployment insurance, for which they are willing to pay, so that they may feel they are not discriminated against.
Last year we had a report on this problem from an interdepartmental committee. The most charitable thing I can say about that report is that it is the most negative report that I ever read in my life. That committee went out of its way to find every excuse it could so that our fishermen would not have benefit from unemployment insurance. I spoke on it last year and I make an appeal

The Address-Mr. Stick now. Our fishermen in Newfoundland feel- and I expect this feeling persists in other provinces as well-they have a right to participate in unemployment insurance. Furthermore, they are prepared to pay their proportion the same as other workers. My appeal today is this. Their cause is just; they are worthy of it. I hope the interdepartmental committee will carry on its work until it does find a way to include the fishermen in the national scheme of unemployment insurance which we have in Canada. I do not care what department it comes under. I do not care whether it comes under the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Fisheries. I believe it can be done. This problem can be solved. If there is a will there is a way. It is high time this problem was solved, and something should be done at this session or at the next session.
This is my idea as to how it should be done. I do not want boards of civil servants going around checking on the fishermen to see whether they are fishing today, tomorrow or the next day. In the main, our fishermen are honest people. I put forth this idea for what it is worth. In Newfoundland we know that if a man catches a certain quantity of fish he is a full-time fisherman, and that he must fish the whole season to catch that quantity of fish, whether it is codfish, lobsters or other kinds of fish. Let us get a yardstick so that if the fisherman catches a thousand pounds or two thousand pounds, let us say, of codfish, he would be entitled to full benefit of unemployment insurance, and he would pay for them. If we work out the yardstick on that basis, then he would get his receipts from the merchant to whom he sells his fish, and on those receipts the government, with their agents going around and with their fish inspectors, would know very well that he had caught this quantity of fish and therefore he is a full-time fisherman; he has fished the whole 190 days and is entitled to unemployment insurance because he has paid his assessment the same as the other ordinary worker. Surely, some yardstick can be worked out. There are enough brains in the civil service of Canada to work out a yardstick so that our fishermen by fishing the full time would reap the benefit of unemployment insurance.
The argument used against my suggestion is that it would be subsidizing the fishermen. Well, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. I have heard the word "subsidization" used as an excuse before. If we adopt such a. scheme, then it will encourage our
fMr. Stick.]

fishermen not only in the fall of the year when they get discouraged and seek some other kind of work, but it will encourage them to keep on fishing right up until the weather prohibits them from fishing. It will also encourage our people in the winter months of January, February, March and part of April when they have nothing to do, when they find that they cannot get employment elsewhere and when they work preparing their boats and building their boats. It will give encouragement to these people by assuring them that in those four months they will be looked after. They are paying for it. It will encourage them to carry on in this industry which is one of the oldest in the world. By carrying on, they will be contributing their share to the economic life of this country.
The fishing industry today is worth about $200 million to Canada. It is capable of great expansion. It cannot be expanded if you have a disgruntled fishing class. If we encourage our fishermen, by showing them they have the sympathy of our people, they will be prepared fully to accept the risks under which they have carried on for many years and they will be adding to the industry and the wealth of this country in no uncertain terms.
May I say a final word. At the main entrance to the House of Commons are these words carved in stone:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
The words "and north" also should be included.
Everything that comes from the sea is wholesome. Doctors will send you on a sea voyage and to the seacoast as an antidote for frayed and distorted nerves. What applies in the medical profession with regard to health measures, applies to the food which comes from the sea. It is nutritious. Only lately we have been finding that out. What the people of Canada need to eat is a balanced diet. By eating more fish our people's health will be that much more improved. On looking around at the people in this part of Canada, I see a lot of anaemic children, with no colour in their cheeks; but when I go back home and see our own children with the healthy look on their faces, I can only come to one conclusion, namely that it is the fish diet that gives them the bloom in their cheeks. Canada needs a balanced diet and more fish is what we must have to build up the fishing industry. For the sake of Canada and for the health of our people, here and now I advocate that we

encourage our fishermen by giving them unemployment insurance whereby they may carry on under the hazards under which they have been carrying on for centuries. If they do not get this encouragement they will feel disappointment.
Mr. Speaker, I have just about finished. In making this plea, I do so in the best interests of all of Canada and not in the interest of one section only. I do so because if we look after our fishermen and encourage them as we do our farmers and everyone else, I believe we will have a Canada fit to live in; a Canada to which other people are looking and to whose shores they will want to come; a Canada which we all desire; a happy Canada, a prosperous Canada and a good Canada in which to live. We have the land, the forests, the mines and the sea. Surely, with that combination we can work out a scheme of economics whereby all the people of Canada will enjoy that prosperity which we all wish them to have, full health, full stomachs and faith in the future of our country which I believe is brighter than that of any other country.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, may I associate myself with the previous speakers in this debate in complimenting the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
First I should like to deal with a matter which primarily concerns my own riding: that is, the Polymer Corporation, a crown company, of which we in Sarnia are very proud-and I think this is the general opinion of people all across this country. I make this statement because of an article which appeared in a weekly publication published in Fort Erie some months ago. This dealt with the Polymer Corporation but unfortunately did not speak the true facts.
I make this statement also because while the Gordon economic royal commission was sitting in Toronto an hon. member of this house who formerly belonged to the socialist party took it upon himself to state in his presentation to the commission that the government should dispose of all crown companies, including the Polymer Corporation. It so happens that I represent the riding in
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy which Polymer is located and I am going to accept the responsibility of speaking as the member for that riding on behalf of the employees of this successful crown corporation. What I have to say will be confined to the Polymer Corporation and will not refer to any other crown corporation, especially the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Like most hon. members of this house, I assume on both sides, I believe in free enterprise. That may be a misnomer as things are today in Canada, but for what it is worth I believe in free enterprise. I believe also that private enterprise or free enterprise and public ownership can contribute jointly to our economic development. We have considerable evidence of that in our province of Ontario and I think some other provinces have shared a similar experience. It is possible that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) in suggesting that the government dispose of this particular crown corporation had in mind the success or failure of crown corporations when they attempted to do business in Saskatchewan with such disastrous results.
The Polymer Corporation produces synthetic rubber. I want it understood distinctly that it is not in competition with any other industry in the Dominion of Canada. I have followed this corporation from its beginning. I recall quite well making several statements in this house concerning the responsibility of Polymer to the municipality in the way of paying taxes or making payments in lieu of taxes. I recall the arguments I made year after year but I regret to say that I did not receive any support from any quarter in this house.
The fact is that I met with a great deal of opposition from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who contended right along that this and other crown corporations should not have to pay taxes or make payments in lieu of taxes because of the great contributions they made to the municipalities in which they were situated. Any industry makes' a contribution to the municipality in which it is located, but it also imposes upon the municipality the necessity of providing services. I argued year after year that Polymer should make its contribution.
When the city of Sarnia enlarged its boundaries in 1950 and took in the Polymer Corporation in that year this crown company paid the city $45,000 in lieu of taxes. I was disappointed in the smallness of the amount and said so on more than one occasion. I expressed the hope that the government or the Polymer officials would reopen

The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy the matter and renegotiate with the city for a larger sum. Apparently the city made no effort to obtain a larger sum.
I am happy to be able to say today that in 1955 Polymer paid to the city of Sarnia in taxes a total of $282,739. The amount paid in the year previous was slightly smaller, and in the year previous to that it was slightly smaller again. I expect and I hope other hon. members will share my optimism that in the next ten years this crown corporation will in all probability pay to the city of Sarnia well over $3 million. That is not peanuts for any municipality. I am very happy, and I have said so on more than one occasion, that a formula was announced by the former minister of finance, the Hon. Mr. Abbott, in November 1949 which obligated crown companies in this country to assume municipal responsibilities.
Polymer is a very successful corporation which is operated pretty much the same as any private corporation in this country. It has exclusive agencies in 23 countries. There was a period in the history of this crown company when it was touch and go. It was organized and brought into being during the war to play its part in the war effort in providing rubber for vehicles used in fighting that war. We were not able to get natural rubber and this corporation was organized to produce synthetic rubber. It was faced since with the wide fluctuations which occurred in the price of natural rubber, the price going up as high as 46 cents a pound and dropping to less than half that amount. All during that period it was necessary for this company not only to supply the local markets but to increase its production in order to supply the export market at the lowest possible price. As I said a moment ago, they have exclusive agencies in 23 countries selling rubber to most of the free world.
I should like to place a few more statistics on the record because I feel sure hon. members will be interested in the operations of this crown company. Last year it paid $3 million in dividends to the federal treasury and made provision for depreciation in the amount of $5,350,000. Its net income was $4,924,000 out of a gross income of just about $54 million. I am happy to say that it is the largest employer of labour in Sarnia. Only a few weeks ago there were 2,453 people in the employ of the corporation and the payroll for 1954 amounted to $9,790,669.
It will be noticed from these figures that the employees of Polymer are not being paid

starvation wages. They are highly skilled technicians. Sarnia is the centre of a large chemical industry in which hundreds and hundreds of engineers are employed. The chemical industry demands that type of employee.
The plant and equipment cost some $72 million. The working capital at the year end was a little over $15 million. The corporation retired $4 million of 4 per cent serial debentures during 1954. The greater part of the capital expenditure during the year went towards increasing productive capacity. Looking at the statements in the past three or four years, I have marvelled that more money was not spent for capital improvement or capital replacement, because this particular company is producing practically twice as much as it was set up to do when it was originally constructed.
I am also happy to see that, since the beginning of the construction of the Polymer Corporation, well over $200 million has been spent for industrial expansion in the city of Sarnia and the area immediately surrounding it. That does not include the immense amounts that are going to be spent by the Ethyl Corporation, the Imperial Oil, Dow Chemical and other companies this year, which will probably run into another $50 million to $75 million. In addition to that, Polymer had an export figure of $37 million in 1954. As I have said in previous years, this particular company has given leadership to private industry in its program of research and development.
There is every evidence from the figures I have quoted that this is a sound industrial enterprise, and I see no reason why Canadian industry should provide a luscious melon to satisfy the hungry taste buds of foreign investment seekers. We have heard about foreign investments, even this morning and on previous occasions in this house during this particular session. We had an eminent resident of Ontario speaking in Boston some months ago and saying that a little over 30 per cent of the investment in Canadian industry was United States money. I understand that this was somewhat qualified a few weeks ago by a United States economist in New York, who produced figures of a breakdown showing that United States investment in Canadian industry was about 44 per cent. That was startling to me, and I am sure it will be to the house.
I am going to say that today's welfare and the future security of Polymer employees should not be determined by any politician,

regardless of what party he happens to belong to, and especially one who has only so recently associated himself with the principles of socialism. The employees of Polymer do not have an inferiority complex as to their capabilities of competing in the competitive world trade in synthetic rubber. I say here emphatically that Polymer must continue to have the right to live as a prosperous Canadian industry owned and controlled by Canadians.
Over the years there have been some attempted disagreements by one of the senior ministers of the crown with statements I have made in this house concerning Polymer. Some of these have been made, of course, in the heat of an election campaign and have less weight, but at all times I have been interested in the welfare of the Polymer employees and the success of that particular corporation. I say that now because I think it is only fair to the taxpayers of Canada and to the members of this house that crown corporations officials should appear before the proper House of Commons committee and give an accounting of their stewardship.
In view of the suggestions that have been made by responsible speakers and by this weekly magazine, and because, too, as I said a moment ago, crown companies should give an accounting to the members who represent certain areas in the Dominion of Canada, I am going to ask that the government permit officials of Polymer to be called before a proper parliamentary committee. I am sure they will report on the remarkable achievements of this industry, which contributed so much to our war effort and which in peacetime has continued to expand at no expense to the Canadian taxpayer. I feel that the officials of Polymer would be glad to come before the committee and proclaim to the members of that committee, to this house and to the people of Canada how successfully they have managed to operate this particular crown company.
The next subject with which I wish to deal probably concerns not many municipalities in Canada, but last year-either during discussion of the estimates or during revision of the bill-it was made known that municipalities having within their boundaries Indian reservations would be entitled to be compensated for services they had rendered to those particular reservations. I immediately contacted the city of Sarnia and learned to my dismay that they had not made any claim since the enlargement of their boundaries, when the Sarnia reservation came within the 67509-10
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy city limits. As I understand it, it is the law of our country that where a municipality gives services to an Indian reservation it can be compensated by the government for those services-through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, I suppose, since it is under that particular minister's department. As I have said, this probably does not apply to many municipalities, but in our particular instance this Indian reservation of some 3,900 acres which is still left in the city is very valuable property. A few years ago they sold 100 acres-one of the largest sales-to the Dow Chemical Company for $2,000 per acre. I think that since then they have been asking considerably more. True, other crown-owned property in the city, right on the St. Lawrence seaway, has been sold for some $350 an acre, but that, of course, was sold to a defeated Liberal candidate, and I hope the time has passed when that sort of thing is done. It is not ethical, to begin with, and it is to be hoped it will not happen again. Not every industry can pay $2,000 or $3,000 per acre for industrial property, but it is unfortunate that we have let the time slide by when property could have been purchased by the government and resold to the city for industrial purposes at a price much less than today's asking price.
I have asked the clerk of the city of Sarnia to prepare a table which might be used as a guide to other members who have Indian reservations within their particular ridings. It shows how they make up the amounts they have spent and the figures of the amounts for which they should be reimbursed. I have figures here for the last five years indicating what the reimbursement would have been since the Indian reservation came within the city limits. The table is broken down into the following headings: General government, fire, police, street lighting, public works, sanitation, health, welfare, education, recreation and community services, debt, land purchase and miscellaneous. These figures might be valuable to other members whose communities are in the same predicament as Sarnia, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the table be incorporated in Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The table is as follows:



CITY OF SARNIA. ONTARIO CLAIM &quot;GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES, INDIAN RESERVE LANDS&quot; TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,784,095.00

[Stage Direction]
-	1951 61 mills Division of Rate	1952 66-5 mills Division of Rate	1953 48-5 mills Division of Rate	1954 48 -5 mills Division of Rate	1955 50-27 mills Division of RateGeneral Government	
4-38	5-51	312	3-68	3-63Fire	
3-62	3-77	2-73	2-58	2-61Police	
3-53	3-90	2-73	2-75	2-77Street Lighting, Misc. Prot	
2-22	2-34	1-45	1 46	1-65Public Works	
5-44	6-02	4-80	4-96	4-92Sanitation	
2-83	3-05	2-47	2-67	2-48Health	
2-15	2-21	1-68	1-20	1-69Welfare	
3-56	3-21	1-99	1-96	1-74Education	
25-00	29-40	21-02	19-23	20-90Recreation and Community Services	
2-20	2-13	1-54	1-58	1-58Debt	
4-06	3-75	3-05	4-58	4-59Land Purchase and Misc	
2 0!	1-21	1-92	1-85	1-7161-00	66-50	48-50	48-50	50-27General Government	
4-38	5-51	3-12	3-68	3-63Fire	
3-62	3-77	2-73	2-58	2-61Police	
3-53	3-90	2-73	2-75	2-77Public Works	
5-44	6-02	4-80	4-96	4-92Health	
2-15	2-21	1-68	1-20	1-6919-12 mills	21 - 41 mills	15-06 mills	15-17 mills	15-62 millsCLAIM	
$34,118.96	$38,197.47	$26,868.47	$27,064.72	$27,867.56TOTAL APPLICATION	
$154,117.18	138	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy

The figures are based on assessment and appear to be very reasonable because one can readily see that 3,700 or 3,800 acres at $2,000 an acre amounts to $6 million or $7 million while the assessment is about $1| million. For the year 1951 the city claimed $34,118.96 on the basis of a rate of 19-12 mills. For 1952 the city claimed $38,197.47, for 1953 $28,868.47, for 1954 $27,064.72 and for 1955	$27,867.56, making a total of
$154,117.18. The mayor of Sarnia was mayor before annexation of this land by the city but just because he and the other elected officials did not know that the city was entitled to this consideration from the federal government is no reason why the city should not be given it. I ask the government to make the payment retroactive to the particular time when the city enlarged its boundaries and took in the Indian reservation.
I do not hesitate to say that this amount is not peanuts and I would also say that the elected officials, especially the one holding the highest office, have been grossly negligent in not inquiring into what they were entitled to receive from the senior government. One cannot pick up a newspaper without seeing that some municipality is squawking about the small amount of its income in proportion to the total tax dollar. True, the federal government is taking about 78 cents out of every tax dollar and the municipalities are hard pressed. While the senior officials of this or any other municipality may be grossly negligent, and I say they are, that is no reason why the federal government should be so niggardly in its attitude and refuse over the years to inform these municipalities of the fact that the federal government has an obligation to them. In view of the large amount that the federal government takes out of the tax dollar and the conditions in which the municipalities find themselves today, I say it is a shameful thing that this or any other government should not let the municipalities know about considerations such as this that entitle them to receive money from the senior government or any other government.
There may be other municipalities in this country that have a great deal more coming to them than in this case and over a greater period of years. I cannot condemn too strongly the action of any government in neglecting its obligations to a municipality, especially in these days when municipalities find themselves so hard pressed to meet their own requirements.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, a committee was set up to study fishing conditions on the great lakes. It was one of the most instructive committees on which I have ever had the 67509-101
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy pleasure of being a member. From the expert evidence given at the meetings of the committee we learned to our dismay that the lamprey menace on the great lakes was costing some $5 million a year. I think that the members of the committee were greatly impressed by the testimony and I am sure that the minister, who I regret is not here, took a most realistic view in an effort to solve the problem facing the fishermen on the great lakes today. I know that in the debate on the bill in the house after it was considered by the committee one could gather from the minister's remarks that he was very anxious that the situation be corrected and without delay.
Since that time an international joint committee has been set up on which there are three Canadian members. In fact, they are three Ontario members because only one province in Canada is on the great lakes. There are also three representatives from the United States representing the eight states bordering on the great lakes. I believe the personnel of that committee was announced early in December, and I was rather amazed to find there the name of one particular man. I was dumbfounded to think that the minister could have chosen him because we had been in contact with this particular individual, Mr. Harkness of Toronto, a civil service employee of the Ontario government, during a meeting of the fishermen of the Sarnia district and through certain newspaper articles.
I recall quite well having urged a sort of double flank movement to eradicate the lamprey menace and suggested that not only should we meet the attack in lake Superior but also in lake Huron because otherwise we would suffer a $5 million loss annually until the menace was eradicated. We urged that the hatchery at Point Edward be kept open and we found that this particular member of the committee, who had not been appointed at that time, declared to the press in a newspaper article that restocking the lakes was like spitting in the ocean. He should be an authority on spitting in the ocean because that is all he has been doing for the last ten or twelve years to preserve the fishing industry in the great lakes. In the meantime the trout fishing industry is being eliminated and the fishermen are going broke. In my end of lake Huron some of the fishermen are not even going to set out their nets in the spring.
I do not intend to enlarge upon the qualifications of the other members of the committee because I am not competent to do so, but I do think it is quite important that when anybody who is a member of such an important committee takes such a negative attitude that attitude should be revealed to the members of the house. I would say he is
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy not fit to be a member of the committee. You never solve any problem by a negative approach, and if any member of this international joint committee is going to take a negative approach to the solution of the problem of a loss of $5 million annually to this industry he had better be replaced by somebody else.
In the course of the debate last year on this subject there was no dissension of opinion except that I believe the view was expressed that the campaign should be confined to lake Superior. It was said that the lamprey should be eradicated there before they got the toehold that they have in lake Huron and lake Michigan. I disagree with that on principle because, as many members may recall, the life span of the lamprey is about six years and after it spawns it dies.
Figures were tabled at that particular time showing the loss to the trout fishing industry. I contended then that when the lamprey eels were through eating the trout they were going to attack the whitefish and the pickerel. That is what they are doing. I am going to ask the indulgence of the house again to have a table put on Hansard showing the catch in lake Huron off the shores of the county of Lambton and the county of Huron. The table was prepared by the Ontario government. There are alarming figures here with respect to the catch of whitefish in that part of lake Huron. In 1949 the catch amounted to 118,894 pounds and in 1954 the amount was 29,887 pounds, just about a quarter. That is a very alarming -situation.
I am going to emphasize again, as forcibly as I can, the necessity of this government seeing that the joint committee take double barrelled action. If they are going to reestablish the fishing industry on the great lakes, they cannot wait another seven or eight years, which is the time it may take to destroy the lamprey in lake Superior. In the meantime, the fishing industry in lake Huron will be destroyed. By that time, there will not be any whitefish left and the lamprey will be after the pickerel. The $5 million a year that this industry has contributed to the joint economy of the two countries is no small amount of money.
The amount appropriated last year for this work was $350,000, including research. I do not believe that is sufficient to do even the necessary work in lake Superior. According to the evidence given before the committee, there are some 40 to 50 streams emptying into lake Huron around Manitoulin in which these electrical weirs could be installed at a cost of from $5,000 to $10,000 a season, including operations. These weirs have proven successful in killing the lamprey as they come up to spawn. I
I Mr. Murphy (Lambton West).]
maintain that the members of this house, through this government, must make provision for this joint commission to have more money, enough money so they can make a joint attack in lake Huron. I go along with the idea of exterminating them in lake Superior, but we should not wait until they are exterminated in lake Superior before making an attack in lake Huron. In the meantime, the fishermen will go broke, and We will have completely lost an important industry. I believe it is only sound common sense and good judgment on the part of business or government, when an industry can be rehabilitated which is worth so much to our economy, to act without delay.
I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that before the estimates are put in final form, some provision should be made to cover this matter. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is quite aware of the menace because he has never lived too far away from the great lakes region. We also know that these streams in which the lamprey spawn are in the riding of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I do not believe he has anything to do with the lamprey, but I do hope he does something towards the extermination of this pest. I feel sure he would lend an attentive ear because, after all is said and done, many of the people in his riding are fishermen. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) speak this morning on behalf of all fishermen, and not only those in his own riding.
I should like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to have permission to place on Hansard a table compiled by the Ontario government showing the catch of lake trout, pickerel and whitefish in lake Huron in the counties of Lambton and Huron.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to place his table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The table follows:
Catch of lake trout, pickerel and whitefish in pounds
	in Huron	county	
Year	Pickerel	Whitefish	Lake Trout1954	494	128,501	1953	7,445	61,126	1952	2,843	123,262	-1951	2,291	225,549	-1950	95	15,825	- '1949	614	21,916	106
Catch of lake trout, pickerel and whitefish in pounds in, Lambton county
Year	Pickerel	Whitefish	Lake Trout1954	230,453	29,887	2021953	299,628	46,707	201952	215,064	88,696	1221951	251,371	80,621	961950	239,272	55,999	1021949	204,013	118,894	136
I shall close in just a moment or two, but I want to mention a letter I received this morning from Port Huron. This city is right across from Sarnia on the United States side. The fishermen there are also concerned about what is taking place and what is not taking place. No doubt some hon. members in this house will be surprised that these people in the United States do not operate hatcheries as we do in Ontario. We have always maintained that hatcheries were necessary to restock the lakes. Perhaps these people took it for granted that our stocking of the lakes would be sufficient for their welfare.
We have met with these people and the members of the legislature of Michigan. This morning I received information that they are introducing a bill, that is the state of Michigan, which will involve a cost to the taxpayers of some $500,000, that is $100,000 a year for a five-year program of research and restocking. I am happy to see that they realize their position. They are opening hatcheries, and I think that is something we must do. I feel that when the government and their advisers look at the information available on the lessening of the various catches, they too will find it necessary to take additional measures. I believe that these 50 streams I mentioned a minute ago are the places, and probably the only places, where these lamprey spawn, so we are justified in asking the government to provide sufficient money to put in these weirs. If it happens to be a hundred, we should still make the expenditure because we will not re-establish the industry until the lamprey is exterminated.
I do hope that some of the members of the committee will be allowed to see how this program is progressing. I hope the committee will be set up as early as possible in this particular session. I am going to make one suggestion in closing. I hope the federal government can make representations to the one department of the Ontario government which issues permits for these sand suckers to take out sand and gravel as they do where lake Huron joins the river St. Clair. Hundreds of thousands of tons are taken to Toronto, Hamilton or Cleveland. I would think that Hamilton and Toronto could find sand and gravel elsewhere. In any event the old fishermen tell me that the removal of that sand in such large quantities destroys the spawning beds of the fish within 20 to 25 miles of the spot where the sand is taken out.
We have protested this action in the past, and I am glad to say that I do not believe any licences were granted this year. But as part and parcel of the program to reestablish the fishing industry on the great
The Address-Mr. MacDougall lakes, representations ought to be made to definitely ensure no more sand or gravel is taken out of that particular area. I am quite prepared to take the word of the old fishermen, who have had 30 years' experience, that the removal of the sand destroys these spawning beds. I am hoping that this session this government will find sufficient money to eradicate the lamprey menace within three or four years and thereby re-establish the fishing industry on the great lakes, an industry which has made a great contribution to the economy of this country.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: I have been afforded a great opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak in this debate. I am not going to do as other members have done and thank the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address. I never have done so because I believe that when the leaders of the opposition parties have done that on behalf of their parties, that is sufficient. Certainly, I feel it is true to say that many of these expressions of thanks, particularly those coming from opposition groups, are not entirely truthful. The upshot of the whole thing is that it could well be eliminated once the members who lead the various groups in the house thank the mover and seconder of the address.
I am sorry the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not in his seat because I should like to draw attention to some remarks he made on November 1 while speaking in the town of Terrace in my province. He made an accusation against the federal government, and if he had only broadened his target to include everyone in the House of Commons I would support his contention 100 per cent. But he narrowed it down to a condemnation of the government when he said that they lacked vision. I think that every member of every party in every corner in this house, to a greater or lesser degree, lacked the vision to realize what a great country we have from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Therefore, if he would only say that his own party as well as the Liberal party lacked vision I would be inclined to go along with him; but since he has narrowed his target to represent only the Liberal administration, unfortunately I will have to disagree with him.
I could buy about nine-tenths of what was said in the speech from the throne. I was rather amazed at my good friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the other day. When he was about to move his want of confidence motion he said there was nothing new in the speech from the throne. Well, I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition from his childhood to the present time has consistently read his Bible. I do not think
142	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacDougall that every time he reads it he expects to find something new in it. Possibly he will get a greater understanding of what is in the Bible, but not necessarily anything new, because the same words are in it now that were there at the time of King James.
I think that by and large, of the speeches of members of the opposition, the leader of the official opposition was not as dynamic as he generally has been on past occasions. I think the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) excelled himself as far as leaders of the opposition parties are concerned. I cannot forget my good friend, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who really put on a good show the other night, but in the final analysis I do not think he said very much.


Mr. Lennard:: What about your own leader?


John Lorne MacDougall: The hon. member would not expect me to comment on that.


John George Diefenbaker: You are more than discreet not to.


John Lorne MacDougall: The whole question comes down to the matter of what is generally agreed across the length and breadth of the country to be good economics in government administration.
I must confess that this morning I was very much impressed with my good friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). You know, I hate to disagree with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has been a good friend of mine for many years; but I sometimes wonder whether there is a little difference between an honest to goodness real dirt sod buster and a city slicker. I remember that on April 22 last my good friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang)-and he is really an honest-to-goodness sod buster; he is not one of those city slickers who go out to the manor every week end; he is there all of the time-said that he wished the people in this house realized that the western farmer was not bankrupt.
I think back to the days when I was a sod buster-and that is quite a while ago. In those days I busted sod with a team of oxen. I think I have intimated in this house before that in the old days we used to have itinerant preachers in Saskatchewan. One of them became a driver of oxen and worked for a neighbour of ours. He gave up preaching. My father asked him why he gave it up and he said: "No man can continue to be a Christian if he drives oxen."
I had that experience, and I know there is a lot in it. Before the outbreak of the first world war I was very much inclined that
[Mr. MacDougall.)

way. Since I was the youngest of a family of ten, none of whom had taken the cloth, I was very much tempted to go in for the ministry, but in the meantime I had driven a team of four oxen and there it ended.
I should like to speak for a few minutes on the trans-Canada highway. I commend the minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that where you are going to drive your oxen?


John Lorne MacDougall: -for the interest he has taken in the trans-Canada highway. The policy that was announced by the federal government when the trans-Canada highway was first conceived was a fair policy at that time. In the time that has elapsed we have seen the program of trans-Canada construction falling far, far below expectations. It seems to me the government will be well advised to reconsider a revision of the program which the minister has now decided on. Before I continue with this subject, may I assert that regardless of what I may say I am still a 100 per cent Liberal, and do not let anyone think that I have any idea of joining any other party.
In British Columbia we have a terrifically high cost of road construction. It runs to something approximating $169,000 a mile in the mountainous area as compared with $60,000 odd in the prairie provinces. Therefore, there is a great difference between the amount that one province has to spend in comparison with another in order to fulfil the terms of the agreement originally made with the federal government in connection with the trans-Canada highway. As far as I am concerned there is no argument in connection with this statement. I do not think that any of us who are sincere in our belief will disagree that, so far as provincial administrations are concerned, roads through mining areas, or lateral roads within the confines of the individual provinces, are of prime importance. That is their chief concern. I don't know that I blame them for it. Now, with that great difference of cost in the construction of the province of Saskatchewan-I say that pretty well because of the prairie provinces as well and the province of British Columbia-that policy of a 50-50 deal is scarcely good enough. First of all we have in the trans-Canada highway one of the real Canadian projects, when it is completed. It is 100 per cent Canadian, because it will link the furthermost eastern portion of our realm to the furthermost western portion and consequently it is a 100 per cent Canadian undertaking. I sincerely suggest to the government and particularly to my good friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), that they revise the situation with

respect to the construction of the trans-Canada highway, and that, from this date hereon, the federal government will bear 100 per cent of the cost of the completion of the trans-Canada highway.
Now I hold in my hands, Mr. Speaker, Votes and Proceedings of January 12, and on page 18 is one resolution that I am afraid I cannot go along with:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of a crop year, such payment to be made to the board by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Now maybe you will say that I am old-fashioned. I probably am; but, you know, being old-fashioned has its virtues just the same as being modernistic has certain virtues. I can well remember my father, when he was a much younger man than I am today, telling me, not on one but on several occasions: My boy, I want to tell you this fact of life; that you will never cure the economic ills of any country by charity.
I think that axiom is just as true today as it was when he uttered those words. Now as I have already stated, I used to be a western farmer. Western farmers, in their thinking, do not change very much from one generation to another, and I am taking the word of a practical western farmer when I quoted earlier what the hon. member from Qu'Appelle said. Now in connection with this I congratulate the government on being sincere in their endeavour to help the economy of everyone in the Dominion of Canada. From that I do not think there is any argument, but in this instance I believe that it is not going to be even remedial. There is no need to tell you that in this broad domain of ours we have the Atlantic on the east and the Pacific on the west. We have another ocean to the north and we have on some portion of the southern part of our realm the great lakes. We are, therefore, by and large a marine country. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if this item goes through-now I cannot give you the exact figure, but I understand that it is to be in the neighbourhood of something like $30 million-that that is not going to satisfy the western farmer. I have a vivid recollection of what happened in the last parliament, when unfortunately, with my vote, I aided and abetted the giving of $65 million to the western farmers as the unexpired portion of moneys that could have been spent by the United Kingdom for the purchase of grain under the wheat agreements at that time. That $65 million did not cure anything. When we had voted that $65 million, I doubt
The Address-Mr. MacDougall very much if the ink was dry on the paper before my good friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was hollering for $365 million. Now you cannot very well appease that type of thinking. As I have said, we are, whether we recognize it or not, a marine country; and if we pass this resolution, certainly it is in condemnation of the government if they do not, because they have acted most magnanimously with all these things. You are going to find in the prairie provinces that you are going to have a new prairie song, particularly in Saskatchewan, applicable also in Manitoba and Alberta, and the song is going to be: Strike up the band, here come the sailors with cash in their hands just off the whaler, stand in a row, do not let them go, for Jack Canuck is a cinch and every inch a sailor. That is what those boys are going to think of the federal government with $30 million minimum handout in connection with the storage of grain. I was amazed when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that the storage charges were going to be as high as 15 and 16 cents a bushel or even go a little higher. That is quite a bit of folding money, no doubt about it; but do not forget, Mr. Speaker, despite storage charges, they have something to store. As the minister pointed out, those surpluses are not the great curse that some of our friends would like us to believe.
Now there is another surplus that I want to mention and that is the question of butter. You know there has been a lot said about wheat and a lot said about butter, if you believe everything that my good friends from the opposition benches say about the government's policy in connection with wheat and butter. It is an amazing thing to me when in 1953 the government went to the country without promising a solitary single thing excepting good government. They promised nothing but a continuance of good government. My good friends in the official opposition were going to reduce expenditures by $500 million a year, year after year. Well you know, the people of Canada may be a bit naive on occasions but they are not crazy enough to swallow that line of malarkey. Promises are just promises regardless of who happens to make them, whether he sits on your extreme left with the socialist party or is part of the official opposition or of the government. I believe the people of Canada have come to the point where they believe that the future performance of the government can be judged by its past performance. The administration was returned in 1953 without having made one single, solitary promise to the electorate of Canada other than the continuance of good government.

The Address-Mr. MacDougall
Now a word about butter. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will agree when I say that presumably we have a small, not a great surplus of butter. I think that if we were able to sell three to four million pounds of butter over the sales for the present year we would wind up at the end of the calendar year with no surplus at all. But supposing we do have a surplus, then I would offer two suggestions to the administration.
Some years ago when Holland started the manufacture of margarine they found that they had quite a surplus of butter. In order to correct this situation they amended their margarine legislation to provide that in the future all margarine should contain a certain percentage of butter. As a result of that the butter surplus was eliminated. This would be all to the good as I have never been convinced even by the advertising that is put out that margarine is as good a food product as butter. If this surplus continues, why should we not do as Holland has done and insist that each pound of margarine contain a certain percentage of butter?
If we do not want to do that, and if we are still faced with a surplus of butter, then my second suggestion would be that that butter be sold to the taxpayers who have bought it at the same price as margarine is being sold. I will buy that one any day in the week. It seems to me that that is one of two logical ways to dispose of this surplus which a great many people, particularly opposition people, seem to regard as criminal. We should give thanks to the Almighty for having surpluses of this, that and the other thing rather than scarcities.
There are many other things I could deal with before the expiration of my time, but I am going to mention only one. I think hon. members by and large, regardless of their politics, had the hope when the civilian disability pension legislation was passed that it would be broad enough to cover a wife who was disabled, a husband who was disabled, or a son or daughter who was disabled.
I know of one tragic case in Vancouver where the husband cannot get a disability pension for his wife who is suffering from multiple sclerosis and who must be waited on and nursed practically around the clock because he is earning a certain amount of money, not too much but enough to just put him over the borderline. As a result the wife cannot obtain a civilian disability pension.
I know as far as I am concerned, and I think this would apply to many hon. members whether they sit in the opposition or on the government side, that that was not the 

spirit in which I considered the civilian disability pension legislation. I should like very much to have the government take cognizance of this right now, not next year or the year after, and make the necessary rectification of the legislation.
The speech from the throne does not indicate this as being one of the pieces of legislation to be amended at this session, but I think this is something that would appeal to the heart and mind of every full-blooded Canadian from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It has happened quite often that after new legislation has been passed and in force for some time we fail to iron out the bugs that develop. You know perfectly well that when a new type of airplane is constructed quite often bugs may develop. The Comet II was an outstanding example. However, in that case the bugs were eliminated and today the Comet III is one of the world's greatest airplanes. The Comet II was grounded because of bugs in the construction.
I am sure I speak for all in the house when I say that none of us wants to see the civilian disability pension legislation grounded because of bugs. Let us start immediately to eliminate the bugs and thus fulfil the spirit rather than the letter of the act.
In conclusion I just want to say that despite all the haranguing about the situation in Canada being pretty bad, about the poor farmer being in such a terrible condition, about the fisherman being faced with such awful conditions, I think it can be said that while things are not as good as they ought to be, by and large the economy of this country -I do not think I am exaggerating-is buoyant and the future is bright.
I must congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) on the bold endeavour he made in his first budget. If he will stop talking to that Tory who is sitting with him he will hear what I am saying, but I am not going to repeat it. I congratulate him because I think he has done a very fine job. Further, I think it is fair to say that the time has come for us to do what is right and not what is expedient, that the time is ripe for us to act with courage and not temerity in all things respecting the government and welfare of this beloved nation of ours.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the other members of this house in congratulating both the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am particularly happy to do so on this occasion, as I have gathered that during the course of the present session we shall be asked to agree to a bill

granting women of the federal civil service equal status with men. This, in my opinion, is most certainly a move in the right direction.
In making my maiden speech in the Canadian House of Commons I feel very humble indeed. I am well aware of the honour which was given to me by the people of my riding.
I am equally aware of the responsibilities that I must now assume as a member of this house. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in you and your office are centred many of the fine and valuable traditions that have been handed down to us through the centuries, and that from your dais stems the guidance which makes our democratic process function.
I shall readily admit that in the field of parliamentary procedure I am one of the infants of this house. However, I shall at all times attempt to give your high office the respect and attention to which it is entitled, and I wish to assure you that I shall more than gladly welcome any guidance and assistance you may see fit to give me personally from time to time. At this time I should like to thank you personally, and through you the members of your staff, for the many courtesies which were extended to me during my short stay here last July. I would also like to include in this respect the courteous consideration I received from the members of all parties, the members of the civil service and others. I was the only new member at that time, and I feel that everyone went out of their way to, shall I say, acclimatize me during my stay here.
The riding which I represent, Battle River-Camrose, came into being following the 1952 redistribution. My predecessor, Robert Fair, was the first member of this new riding. This territory has a population of approximately
58,000	people. The vast percentage of these people are either actively engaged in agriculture or are dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. It is an area of many small communities, each of which is justly proud of itself.
The only city in my riding is the jubilee city of Camrose. Camrose is the youngest city in Canada, and as such celebrated its first birthday last September. It was my privilege to attend its first birthday dinner, and I was very pleased to notice that at this gathering the vast majority of the guests were men and women in civic positions in the city, the administrative staff of the city offices, the teachers, members of the department of public works and others. To me this was a fine gesture on the part of the mayor and members of his council, for far too often those people charged with the responsibility of carrying out established policies are overlooked in civic functions of this type.
The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith
Other large centres found in my riding are Lloydminster, a meridian town as it straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border; Vermilion, where one may find one of the large generating plants operated by Canadian Utilities; Viking, just north of which is the large natural gas field which for years was the major source of fuel for the city of Edmonton; Wainwright, which until recent years was noted for its large buffalo park, the area now being a part of the Wainwright military camp; Bashaw; Hardisty; Holden; Daysland; Killam; and others.
Most of the towns and villages within my riding have taken advantage of the Alberta government's self-liquidating revolving fund and secured money at a very low rate of interest to instal water, sewage and other community projects. By making this money thus available the Alberta government has given the people of the smaller communities of the province the same modern conveniences enjoyed by city dwellers. It was with a great deal of pleasure that I officially opened the waterworks project in the village of Kitscoty, where my family and myself had resided for many years.
The ethnic origin of the people of Battle River-Camrose is, to my mind, a true example of how peoples of many nationalities can become one under a democratic system such as ours. It is not hard to find people whose ancestors came to Canada from the British Isles, from the United States, from the Scandinavian peninsula, France, Germany, the Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Belgium, Holland and other European countries, all living together within this riding; and they are not only proud that they are now Canadian but they are consistently and conscientiously working together to make this a happier and more prosperous nation. We are all Canadians; and, while many of us still cherish and like to practise some of the customs of our ancestors, we are prepared to admit that we have gained and are still gaining much from the cultures of other ethnic groups. The United States often maintains that it is the melting pot of national groups. I would not want it to think that it is the only nation entitled to claim this singular distinction.
During the latter part of 1955 we in Alberta celebrated the golden jubilee year of our province. On this eventful occasion we were very happy to have with us for a short time the Prime Minister of Canada. It was a thrilling sight to see him being driven up to our legislative buildings, accompanied by our Lieutenant Governor Bowlen, in the same landau which had been used by Sir Wilfrid Laurier 50 years previously. This was a sight

The Address-Mr. J. A. Smith that stirred the emotions of most of us. It reminded us that we Albertans are a part of a large and growing nation.
This was a gala event. However, to my mind the events which really struck at the heart of Alberta were the ones which were held in the smaller communities throughout the province where the local people, young and old, gathered together to do honour to their senior citizens. It was at gatherings such as these that we of the younger generation were given the opportunity of expressing our appreciation to the men and women who had come to our province over 50 years ago, stayed there and played their respective parts in the moulding of our communities and the province as a whole. I can well recall watching one little old lady going forward to accept a scroll which was given to her at that time, a scroll which she so richly deserved. These events definitely laid down a challenge to the younger people of these communities, a challenge to continue the growth of Alberta and make it a still better part of our great country.
I would not want any member of the house to feel that all is well in my riding, because that most certainly is not the case. We have many problems which are bothering us. As I have already stated, agriculture is our basic industry just as it is still the basic industry of the whole of Canada. We in Battle River-Camrose have thousands upon thousands of bushels of wheat which cannot be marketed. I most certainly subscribe, Mr. Speaker, to the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and other hon. members on this side of the house. They have already mentioned the need for immediate action to provide cash advances to the farmers of the west to alleviate the crisis now confronting them. I am certain that all members from the west are acutely aware of this crisis, and that each and every one of them will be striving to persuade the government that something effective must be done immediately to, first, relieve the situation as ' it now exists and, second, establish machinery which will not permit such a disaster to happen again.
Many meetings of the farmers in my riding have been held to discuss this serious problem, serious because it affects the whole economy of western Canada right now and will within the very near future have an adverse effect upon the economy of the whole of Canada. At the annual convention of the farmers' union of Alberta one could sense the uneasiness that existed in the minds of the delegates, and we must remember that the delegates were only reflecting the over-all

thoughts of the farmers and townspeople of their own areas. There is very little use trying to encourage our young people to remain upon the farms of the west as long as the present uncertainty in the industry remains. Our farmers are forced to face too many crises, too many risks of nature from the time they sow their grain until they have it harvested, to have to face the risk of not being able to market their products at the end of the season. I would again like to point out, just as it has been pointed out time and time again in this house, that the farmers of Canada fall far short of receiving their rightful share of the national income.
You may well ask what are the Social Credit proposals for remedying this serious situation. I wish now to quote from a statement released to the press by the Social Credit caucus in Alberta in early December. They had this to say:
The present federal policy with respect to loans on farm-stored grain Is entirely inadequate and the proposal to put the farmers further into debt at 5 per cent interest is unfair and unjust when all the circumstances are taken into consideration. Not many farmers will be able to qualify for the full amount of the loan. Even if more of them did, the amount would not be sufficient in many cases to take care of the debts incurred in putting in and taking off the crop.
We believe the federal government should make it possible for the Canadian wheat board to make cash advances to farmers against grain stored on the farm. The Canadian government should make an immediate start on provision of approved storage on the farms. One way of doing this would be to pay the farmer storage rates on the same basis as paid to elevators, if they build approved facilities.
It is obvious that the federal government does not have the answer to surplus production. We do not look upon surpluses as a calamity. It is only when we bungle the handling of them that they become such. If we provide proper storage, widely dispersed on the farms, and are prepared to use the national credit to finance the cash advances against the surpluses so stored, these surpluses can become a blessing to our country and the world in the years ahead.
As a long-range program towards a permanent solution to the problem of surplus grain production tire Canadian government should undertake a vigorous sales campaign to sell our surplus agricultural products to other nations requiring additional food supplies. To this end we should be prepared to enter into barter deals, credit dealp and to accept at least some currencies of the importing countries in exchange for our surplus grain.
Nor would I wish hon. members to feel that the marketing of grain is the only problem of concern among the farmers of the west. The hog raisers in my area are going out of business as rapidly as possible because the returns from this branch of agriculture are not sufficient to justify the cost of feed and the work which must go into raising a litter of pigs for market. The cattlemen are viewing with alarm the steady decline in prices being paid for their stock on the Winnipeg and

other markets of the west. This winter has all the appearance of being similar to the winter of 1919. Cattlemen were forced to start feeding their cattle early in November, and many of them are seriously concerned whether or not they have sufficient feed on hand to carry them through.
I do know that the price demanded for baled hay has risen by leaps and bounds during the last few weeks. What will likely happen if the winter continues to be severe is that many of the smaller ranchers will be forced to place their cattle upon the markets of the west. As it takes years to build up a foundation herd, I feel that this would be very serious to many of the smaller ranchers in my area. We can also appreciate the depressing effect that the dumping of a large number of cattle will have upon the open market.
Some question with respect to whether the so-called floor price on hogs is being maintained was raised in the house the other day. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that not only should the floor price on hogs be strictly adhered to, but that there should also be established a floor on all agricultural products, including cattle and cereal grains.
It has already been pointed out that the crisis in western agriculture has been growing in the last few years. This unhappy situation has affected practically everyone living in my riding. When a farmer's income is cut off it affects the merchant, the machinery agent, the professional people; in fact, nearly every phase of our life is affected. It is my intention to deal at greater length with this problem at another time. We still have problems centring around the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the Income Tax Act as it affects farmers, old age pensions, veterans allowances, the Meridian bridge just north of Lloydminster, and public buildings. Just in that connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the government, and more particularly the Minister of Public Works, upon the fine federal building which is now being constructed in the city of Camrose. I trust that similar structures will soon be undertaken in other parts of my riding.
It is no secret throughout the dominion that oil has meant much to Alberta. In this connection I should like to point out that while Battle River-Camrose cannot claim the same distinction as such places as the Pembina field, Redwater, Leduc, Golden Spike and so forth, yet we have experienced a lot of activity along these lines. There is hardly a small community in my riding which has not seen a drilling crew come into it
The Address-Mr. Carrick seeking oil. Oil has been discovered from south of Camrose eastward toward the Lloydminster area.
We realize that nature has been good to us in this regard. The town of Lloydminster with the Husky and Excelsior refineries, the Sydney Roofing and other plants associated with the oil industry, are good examples of what oil has meant to our economy. I will listen with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to the debate on the proposed gas pipe line through northern Ontario. I only hope that the people of Canada will soon be able to enjoy the advantages of this type of fuel. The story about Alberta coal is not one of which anyone can be proud, however.
My predecessor, Robert Fair, was known throughout western Canada as one of the champions of western agriculture or perhaps I should say Canadian agriculture, because to him agriculture was a Canada-wide project. He was also known as a strong advocate for a fair deal to all veterans. He was a friend of the old age pensioner. In fact, in my mind Robert Fair left an enviable record behind him. He was a very close and dear friend of my wife and myself. I knew of his ambitions and his accomplishments. I am aware of the respect in which he was held, not only throughout his own constituency but amongst the members of all parties here and throughout Canada generally. I am fully conscious of the fact that I am following in the steps of a truly great statesman, and it is my intention to attempt at all times to maintain the standards set by Robert Fair. With God's help I shall attempt to do this.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) upon the excellence of her speech in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. We knew that she would acquit herself well, and of course she has done that. We know that the choice of the hon. member is a tribute to her personally, and an indication of the high esteem in which she is held by this government.
I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) upon the excellence of his address. It augurs well for his future as a parliamentarian.
I am going to speak on that portion of the throne speech which deals with the subject of natural gas in Canada and the trans-Canada pipe line. The government proposes to recommend to parliament the creation of a crown corporation to construct the northern Ontario section of an all-Canadian pipe line, and to approve an agreement

The Address-Mr. Carrick relating thereto made between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The federal government deserves the commendation of the people of Canada for the part it has taken in the development of natural gas and in the plan to bring Alberta gas to the people of eastern Canada.
It may be helpful to an understanding of the problems if I were to outline the situation at the present time. In Alberta, there are large reserves of gas available for export eastward. According to a recent estimate the reserves amount to 16 trillion cubic feet, and development is currently proving up over one trillion cubic feet of new gas each year. Everyone in Alberta is anxious to see the gas put to use. The owners want to get the revenue from the sale of gas and avoid the wastage involved in burning at the well heads. The establishment of a gathering system in Alberta will require capital expenditures which will stimulate industrial activity in Alberta. The Alberta government is anxious to see the gas put to use because the royalties will produce millions of dollars in income for its treasury, and the disposal of the gas will be a stimulus to continued exploration and development of further gas and oil deposits. For these and many other reasons, everyone in Alberta is anxious that Alberta gas be sold.
It is equally desirable that natural gas be made available to the people of Ontario and Quebec. The premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, has stated that he is interested in having western gas made available to consumers in Quebec. The premier of Ontario, Mr. Frost, had a study of the whole situation made for his benefit, and he is anxious to have Alberta gas made available to the consumers of Ontario at the earliest possible date. Ontario is engaged in exploiting to the full its resources for the production of electricity and it is forecast that without the aid of natural gas there will be an acute shortage of fuel in Ontario by 1970. Of the approximate
1,250,000	people who have come to Canada since 1945, about 500,000 have settled in Ontario, and it is considered that if the enormous rate of expansion is to continue it is necessary to have natural gas as a supplementary fuel. In short, the people of Ontario and eastern Canada want to be able to buy Alberta natural gas.
Hon. members will recall that for a time there was a discussion whether it would be desirable to ship Alberta gas into the United States in the west and import Texas gas into Ontario and Quebec in the east, and not build an all-Canadian pipe line. That question has been settled, and all parties in this house are


agreed that the construction of an all-Canadian pipe line is desirable to transport Alberta gas to eastern Canada.
The question has arisen whether the pipe line should be constructed under public or private ownership. This government decided that it would be preferable, if possible, to have the pipe line constructed by private enterprise.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, a company incorporated by special act of this parliament, is grappling with the problem of construction of the pipe line from Princess, Alberta, to Montreal, Quebec. The present plan is to have the line run from Princess, Alberta, through Saskatchewan via Regina; through Manitoba via Winnipeg; through Ontario via Port Arthur and Fort William, Kapuskasing, North Bay to Toronto and from there to Montreal via Morrisburg. A lateral will be run from Winnipeg through Emerson to the Minneapolis market. Already there is an existing lateral from Toronto to Niagara Falls available to feed the market in the northwestern part of New York State. Branch lines will also be run from North Bay to Sudbury and from Morrisburg to Ottawa. The pipe line will be 34 inches in diameter from Princess to Winnipeg, 30 inches in diameter from Winnipeg to Toronto and 20 inches in diameter from Toronto to Montreal.
It is estimated that the cost of constructing the pipe line from Alberta to Quebec will be about $375,000,000. Of this amount about $118,000,000 will be involved in construction of the pipe line from the western boundary of Ontario to Kapuskasing. In endeavouring to arrange its financing the company found that it could not at this time, by its own efforts alone, finance the construction of the whole project.
The possibility of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited doing its own financing was investigated for the Ontario government by Mr. J. G. Glassco of Clarkson, Gordon and Company in Toronto. In a report dated November 18, 1955, he says the figures show that without government assistance in any form the project would suffer losses for two or three years and would earn only small profits for several years thereafter. Apart from unsatisfactory initial earning power, the uncertainties of market development in areas new to natural gas and the possibility of heavy construction and operating costs in the rugged terrain of northern Ontario constitute additional difficulties in financing the project by conventional methods. He concluded that the company would not likely be able to attract enough support from private capital to finance the whole pipe line.

The Address-Mr. Carrick
The governments of Canada and Ontario, which are both interested in seeing the pipe line completed at the very earliest possible date, have agreed, subject to approval of the appropriate legislative bodies, to construct the pipe line from the western border of Ontario to Kapuskasing at an estimated cost of $118,000,000. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will construct the rest of the pipe line, that is from Princess, Alberta to the western border of Ontario and from Kapuskasing to Montreal at an estimated cost of $257,000,000.
It was recognized that even with temporary government assistance it was not possible, on the basis of the present markets in eastern Canada, to construct and operate the pipe line on an economic basis. Arrangements were therefore made by Trans-Canada to sell to Tennessee Gas Transmission Company at Emerson, Manitoba for the Minneapolis and mid-west market 200 million cubic feet of gas daily for a period of 25 years. Arrangements were also made to sell the same company 100 million cubic feet of gas daily for a period of 25 years for export via Niagara Falls into northwestern New York state only if gas surplus to Canadian needs is available. It is expected that the revenues derived from these two sales with an expanding market in eastern Canada will enable the project to be operated on an economic basis.
The import now taking place of Texas natural gas by Consumers Gas Company from Buffalo in New York state to Toronto for consumption in the market in the Toronto area is an integral part of the plan of building up markets in Ontario. The gas is being brought into Toronto under an arrangement by which it can be discontinued when Alberta gas is available to satisfy the requirements of the Toronto market. The pipe line can at that time be used with a reverse flow to carry Alberta gas to northern New York state.
It is also an integral part of the plan of building up the markets in Ontario for Tennessee Gas Transmission Company to export from the United States into Ontario 90 million cubic feet daily of Texas gas until Alberta gas is available to replace it. This Texas gas will service the communities east of Toronto along the north shore of the St. Lawrence as far as Montreal.
It will be realized that the export of gas to the Minneapolis market and to northwestern New York state and the export of gas from the United States into Ontario by Tennessee Gas Transmission Company are an integral part of the financing of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. This export of gas cannot take place without the prior sanction of the federal power commission in the United States. Applications are
now pending before the commission for such approval. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company is endeavouring to obtain it before April 30, 1956, the date on which Trans-Canada expects to be able to demonstrate to the government of Canada that its financing has been arranged.
This government proposes to carry out the construction of the pipe line from the western border of Ontario to Kapuskasing through the medium of a crown corporation which is to be created. The government has entered into an agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to construct the pipe line and lease it to that company for a period of 25 years. The government of Ontario has agreed to pay up to one-third, but not to exceed $35,000,000, of the estimated $118,000,000 cost. That is a very brief factual statement of the situation existing at the present time.
Some criticism has been directed at the federal government for entering into this agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. It might be profitable for us to look at this criticism for a moment in the light of the circumstances which existed when the agreement was made on November 21, 1955. It was in May, 1954, that Trans-Canada obtained permission from the Alberta petroleum and gas conservation board to export gas eastward. Since that time it has been engaged in arranging for the purchase of gas for a period of -25 years from its owners in Alberta. It has also been engaged in arranging for the sales I have already mentioned in the United States, and in procuring markets in Ontario and Quebec. The arrangements for purchases and sales had to be completed before the company could arrange to raise money to finance the construction of the pipe line to eastern Canada. The company finally came to the point where it was clear that it was not able, without some temporary assistance from the federal government, to finance the construction of the pipe line to eastern Canada.
The choice facing the federal government was a difficult one. Its paramount interest was to see the pipe line constructed so that Alberta gas could be brought to eastern Canada at the very earliest possible date. I have already outlined why it was in the interests of both Alberta and eastern Canada for this to take place. Trans-Canada had been interested in the project since 1949 and had spent in excess of $13,000,000 working on the project and exploring the possibility of constructing and financing the all-Canadian pipe line. The company had already contracted to purchase at an estimated cost of $30,000,000 the pipe necessary to lay the line from Princess. Alberta to Winnipeg, Manitoba. It was
150	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Carrick
a reasonable expectation that if the federal government gave some temporary assistance to the company, the pipe line could be completed and Alberta gas would be flowing into eastern Canada by 1958. If the federal government refused to give the company any temporary assistance, the possibility of Trans-Canada financing the pipe line was at an end.
What was the alternative to rendering temporary assistance to the company? Since Alberta needed to sell its gas and eastern Canada needed the gas for its fuel requirements, it was clear that the pipe line had to be built. If it could not be built by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited it would have to be built under public ownership. Assuming an arrangement could be made among the federal government and the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, it was a reasonable expectation that it would take considerable time to complete the negotiations for such an agreement and that the line would not be completed until at least 1960.
The federal government was faced with the fundamental question whether this is the kind of economic activity in which it and the provincial governments should participate. In view of what has happened in the recent federal-provincial conferences, it could be under no illusions about the difficulty of reaching an agreement with the provinces. There was the very distinct possibility that no agreement could ever be reached by the five provinces concerned and the federal government on the construction of the pipe line. Taking all these factors into consideration, it was a reasonable conclusion for the federal government to reach that the better alternative was to render temporary assistance to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to enable it to construct the pipe line.
Criticism has been expressed in some quarters to the federal government rendering any assistance at all to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. It is argued that if the pipe line is to be constructed by private enterprise, then private enterprise should be prepared to do it without any assistance from the government. I see no justification for this argument. There might be some justification for it if Trans-Canada were at liberty to construct the pipe line upon any route it desired. It could lay its pipe line along an economic route which would pay its own way, and no help would be required from the government.
This is not the situation. It is the federal government, supported by all parties in this house, that is requiring Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to lay its pipe to eastern Canada over a stretch of territory in Ontario

which is devoid of substantial customers. Since the federal government is requiring this action in the national interest, should it not assist in offsetting any economic disadvantage to the project required by the national interest?
There is nothing unique or unusual in the federal government assisting private enterprise in a project that is in the national interest. Federal government assistance to private enterprise in constructing a railroad to unite Canada was a cornerstone in the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. It may well be that the construction of a trans-Canada pipe line in our day will rank in importance with the construction of a railroad in the generation of Sir John A. Macdonald.
Some criticism has been directed at the federal government on the ground that it assumes all the risk of the construction of the uneconomic part of the project and gets none of the profits. This is not an accurate statement of the agreement or summary of the situation. The agreement provides that the federal government through the crown corporation will construct the portion of the pipe line between the Manitoba-Ontario boundary and Kapuskasing, a distance of 675 miles, as an integrated part of the all-Canadian line. Upon completion of construction the crown corporation will lease this northern Ontario section to the pipe-line company for a maximum period of 25 years.
Trans-Canada undertakes to purchase the section as soon as the finances can be arranged. It is given an option to purchase for the 25-year period of the lease, and the terms of the purchase provide a strong incentive to exercise the option at an early date.
The provisions dealing with what the federal government is to receive are somewhat complicated. Rental payments are to be made monthly and annually. If the option to purchase is not exercised, the federal government will receive by way of rental payments a profit over and above expenses, interest costs and amortization in the event that gas demand increases as expected.
If the option to purchase is exercised the least the federal government will receive will be its full investment plus interest thereon at 3J per cent per annum. Depending on the time the option is exercised the purchase price may be higher.
In view of the fact that Trans-Canada must show the federal government that the project has been financed before the federal government spends one cent on the construction of the northern Ontario section, the risk to the government is minimal. The federal government will get its money out of the project

with interest, and it is doubtful if this is the kind of undertaking in which the government should make any further profit.
There has been some criticism in the newspapers of the project on the ground that Trans-Canada in its contract with Tennessee Gas Transmission Company has sacrificed Canadian consumers to the interest of the Tennessee company.
The charge is that Trans-Canada had a contract with Northern Natural Gas Company to sell that company gas for distribution in the Minneapolis and midwest market, and that Trans-Canada cancelled that contract and made a less favourable one with the Tennessee company. It is charged that as a result of the Tennessee company paying a lower price for gas than the Northern Natural Gas Company had agreed to pay, the Canadian consumers will have to make up the difference and pay a higher price for gas. All of this came about, it is charged, because the Tennessee company had a financial interest in Trans-Canada which it improperly used to procure a contract favourable to itself at the expense of the Canadian consumers. It is also alleged that the Tennessee company used its influence to obtain a contract for the purchase of gas from Trans-Canada for sale through Niagara Falls, Ontario, to the markets of New York state at a price which is too low, with the result that the price to Canadian consumers will be too high.
These charges puzzled me, because the directors of Trans-Canada did not seem to me to be the type of men who would sacrifice the interests of the Canadian consumers. Of the 15 directors of Trans-Canada 11 are Canadians, so that Canadians control the board. Hon. members will recognize the names of many of the Canadian directors as men who are highly esteemed in the Canadian business community. They are the president, Mr. N. E. Tanner, a former minister of mines and minerals in the Alberta government; H. R. Milner of Edmonton; A. Deane Nesbitt of Montreal; J. K. McCausland of Toronto; Jules R. Timmins of Montreal; Hon. Edouard Asselin of Montreal; J. R. Tolmie of Ottawa; E. W. Bickle of Toronto; Hon. G. Peter Campbell of Toronto; G. P. Osier of Winnipeg and M. A. MacPherson of Regina.
I made inquiries about the facts from persons associated with the project and am advised that these charges are based upon a complete misunderstanding of the facts and are not true.
I have mentioned the charge that the Tennessee company improperly used its financial interest in Trans-Canada to procure contracts detrimental to the interests of Canadian
The Address-Mr. Carrick consumers. I am told that at the time Trans-Canada made the contract with the Tennessee company, the Tennessee company had no financial interest whatsoever in Trans-Canada nor at that time had there been any discussion of the Tennessee company acquiring any interest. The contract with the Tennessee company was made on the 11th day of August, 1955. The Tennessee company did not begin negotiations to acquire any financial interest in Trans-Canada until the latter part of October, 1955, and the contract defining its interest was dated 1st November, 1955. Moreover, there was no relation between the contract of the 11th August, 1955 and the interest of the Tennessee company in Trans-Canada. The desire of the Tennessee company to acquire a financial interest in Trans-Canada arose in connection with a liability it assumed of $30,000,000 to enable Trans-Canada to obtain pipe for use in construction in 1956. Obviously since the Tennessee company had no financial interest in Trans-Canada at the time the contract was made, the charge that it used its interest improperly is without any foundation.
I am also told that everything considered, the contract with the Tennessee company is more favourable to Trans-Canada than the contract with Northern Natural Gas Company. Northern Natural Gas had agreed to purchase 100 million cubic feet daily of natural gas for sale in the Minneapolis market the first year, building up to 200 million cubic feet daily the third year with an option on an additional 100 million cubic feet daily beginning the fourth year. The Tennessee company agreed to purchase double that amount, namely 200 million cubic feet in the first year, with an option on an additional 200 million cubic feet. A prominent market consultant retained by Trans-Canada advised in effect that considering the volume and load factor the price to be received by Trans-Canada from the Tennessee company compared favourably with the price Trans-Canada was to receive from Northern Natural Gas Company.	t
There is another consideration that is important. The only gas Northern Natural Gas Company could purchase was for use in the Minneapolis market. But the Tennessee company contracted to purchase, if Alberta gas were available surplus to Canadian needs, 100 million cubic feet daily for sale in the markets of northwestern New York state. This additional volume of sales has an important bearing on the volume of gas to be shipped to eastern Canada, and consequently will ultimately have a beneficial effect on the eastern Canadian consumer in the rate he will pay for gas.

Point of Order


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I rise on a point of order? I wonder if Your Honour will consider a comment on the application, now that we have new rules in the house, of citation 293(o) of Beauchesne's second edition; also citation 314. Citation 293(o) prohibits a member from reading from a previously prepared speech. This rule has been sanctioned by usage both in England and Canada. Citation 314 reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention."
I hope the hon. member for Trinity will not take it personally that I raise this point of order in the midst of his speech. I think this is the first instance of the reading of a speech this session. Perhaps we might have a ruling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on this, I came in the house about 15 minutes before this hon. member started and another hon. member was reading his speech at that time, and I suggest that if the hon. member has been in the house as long as I have he has seen other speeches read. It is quite obvious that my hon. friend is not reading his speech; he is consulting his notes from time to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite prepared that the point I raised should be raised against me or any member of this group if any of us were to read his speech. But I think it is pretty obvious what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) is doing right now, and I ask for a ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested when he first rose that I should comment rather than give a ruling. We have commented from this chair a great many times on the question of reading speeches, and what I am going to say now will be by way of comment and not, unless I have to, by way of a ruling.
I think officially or unofficially it has always been the habit in this house to allow far more latitude in the debate on the address than in debates on specific bills, items in the estimates and so on which are before the house or the committee. I remember being placed in the embarrassing position last session of being requested to make a ruling upon this subject, and I stated then what I am going to state now.
There is perhaps no better known or more often quoted rule of this house than the rule

against the reading of speeches; neither is there any rule that I know of that is broken more consistently or that is more difficult for the Speaker of the moment to enforce. Perhaps it is not letting any cat out of the bag when I say that I understand that serious consideration is being given at the present time in certain quarters to the possibility of more strictly enforcing the rule against the reading of speeches. If that enforcement comes, I think it will come first in connection with specific matters and not in connection with debates of this kind.
May I say of the hon. member who has the floor that I do not know whether he was reading his speech. I think it is obvious to everyone that a speech as full of figures as the one the hon. member has been delivering would compel the speaker who is delivering it to keep his eyes closely fixed on the paper before him. Unless actually challenged on this point I must assume that the hon. member is giving the house the benefit of his own views. I do not think it is being seriously suggested that he is giving to the house views which someone else has handed him in order that he might publicize them here.
So if we comment on the point which was quite properly raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and which I am sure will be raised again, I can only say-this is a confession of weakness from the Chair at the moment-that I know of no way in which I can tell an hon. member he is reading his speech if he tells the house that he is following his notes fairly closely. May I say entirely by way of obiter dictum that sometimes I almost wish we had the right to say to a member, "In my opinion you are reading your speech." At the moment I understand that the usage of the house is to accept what is being said as the member's views.
I think perhaps the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has now been made sufficiently to permit the hon. member for Trinity to carry on the rest of his discourse without reading word for word things which perhaps he may have committed in paragraph form to paper. I am certainly not going to stop the hon. member delivering a speech of that nature if he happens to be following facts and figures quite closely. The time taken during this discourse will not be deducted from the time allowed to the hon. member for Trinity, because I have taken up most of it myself.


Donald D. Carrick: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure hon. members of this house that if I have trespassed technically against a rule I have not trespassed against the spirit of that rule. The speech which I have presented to

the house was prepared only by myself and no one else. It is my own ideas that have gone into it. I worked on the subject a great deal, and probably I gave the hon. member who objected the impression that I was reading it. I was following my notes quite carefully. I knew the subject so well that it may have been that I gave that impression.
The Trans-Canada project has been criticized in the press on the ground that it is an American-sponsored project and the Canadian public will not be given the opportunity to obtain control of it. Figures have been bandied about to show that it is impossible for the Canadian public to acquire control on the basis of the issued common stock. I am told that these figures are no indication of the ultimate distribution of the common stock to be issued and of the ultimate control of the company.
The sponsors of the project have assured the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the Canadian public will be given the opportunity of buying a controlling interest in the project, and the minister has on a number of occasions communicated that assurance to the public.
I am also advised that in the contract between Trans-Canada and the Tennessee company there is a provision requiring a majority of the common stock of Trans-Canada to be offered to the Canadian public. The same arrangement had been made with Canadian Delhi Petroleum Limited, which is controlled in the United States.
It should perhaps be mentioned that there is no assurance the Canadian public will seize the opportunity to obtain control of Trans-Canada. If it does not desire to put its money into this project it is not the responsibility of the federal government. As long as the Canadian public is given the opportunity to acquire control, that is all that can be asked of the federal government and of the promoters of the project.
Mr. Speaker, it must be apparent that the federal government has been grappling with a difficult problem. Its aim is to have the Trans-Canada pipe line constructed and in operation at the earliest possible date. It has done everything it can to achieve this objective, and it deserves the commendation of the Canadian people.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I would like to say a few words in French in order to show my affection and respect for my French-Canadian colleagues in this house as well as to pay tribute to the French-Canadian people as a whole.
I wish to thank all my French-Canadian friends for the encouragement which they
The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser extend to us English-speaking members in our efforts to learn French. I have always admired their great ability in speaking both French and English. Over the past few years I have had the privilege to make the acquaintance of a large number of French-Canadians who have made me understand the generosity and kindly friendliness which characterize the French-Canadian people. There are no difficulties between the various races in Canada which cannot be solved by working together, by mutual understanding and good will. By working together we shall make of our beloved Canada a country which offers the world a fine example of brotherhood and co-operation between all Canadians.
(Text) :


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was pleased to note that at this time a lady was given the honour of moving the address. I am not going to make any apology for taking up the time of the house today, because as you know I am generally a man of few words and I try to get those words over.
First of all I should like to suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that he consider, and consider carefully and most sympathetically, the request of the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for an improvement in the legislation concerning our blind folk. This is something I believe is certainly needed.
These two organizations that are sponsoring this improved legislation are both working for one end, and that is to help the blind people of Canada. The Canadian Council of the Blind is an organization composed entirely of blind people. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind is a different organization, and is the one that publishes the braille books and talking books, and organizes many other aids for the blind, including the school at Brantford.
Now I am going to read from a little pamphlet, just to give you the meat of what these people want. I believe that every member of parliament, including the Prime Minister and every member of the cabinet, has received one of these pamphlets. This is a one-point program; they are not asking for a number of things as they have in the past, but just one specific thing that they feel is definitely needed for the blind people. This is what they are asking for:
A specific allowance free from the means test by the government of Canada for all blind adults, to cover the costs of guiding and other essential expenses peculiar to blindness.
154	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser
Because the handicap of blindness by its very nature imposes additional expenses, such as guidance and other essentials, the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind believe that the government of Canada should provide an allowance. It will defray at least a part of these expenses and encourage sightless citizens to lead an active normal life socially, recreationally, and, wherever possible, vocationally.
The legislative improvements may be made effective through amendments to the Blind Persons Act of Canada-1951.
I feel that I am closer to the blind person and the needs of the blind than perhaps any other member in the house, owing to the fact that I have in my own home a person who is blind as the result of an accident some 12 or more years ago, a person who is not receiving the blind allowance and has never asked for it. I know almost everything that blind persons can do, how many things they cannot do, what they can do for themselves and cannot do for themselves, and the many cases in which they need a sighted person to help them. I know the great need for companions who can help these people in everyday life.
These blind people, when they first become blind, think the world has caved in on them and that there is absolutely no hope. But after a few years they become normal citizens if given half a chance. Through the Canadian National Institute for the Blind these chances have been given to them in the form of education and help at home through their home teachers, and at the blind school in Brantford. Every one of these blind people-and we have a great number of them in Canada-is dependent, as I have said, on a sighted person. They have to have somebody who will read to them, somebody who will take them to the dentist, to the doctor, to public meetings and so on, because they want to know as well as you or I what is going on.
I have found that if these people are given guidance they are able to do as well as, if not in many cases better than, a sighted person. I know one person who can answer the telephone, take 15 or even 20 telephone numbers, and five or six hours later repeat those numbers with comments on them to the person for whom they are intended. They can type, knit, make leather work, work in factories and do machine work. But these people, in order to have a better outlook on life, need someone to guide them to different places, to ride with them when they travel in a car, bus or train, tell them what is going on outside and explain to them what might be of scenic interest, the roads, trees or mountains they are passing and so on; and these people will remember.


A few short weeks ago I had the pleasure of sitting next to Mrs. Sadie Bending, president of the Canadian Council of the Blind, when she made a speech which I would say would be hard to beat. All she had were braille notes, which she followed with her left hand, and she talked as fast as I am talking now, or even faster. She was so interesting that the people who heard her- many sighted people as well as blind-have asked that she come back to speak again. She is a very clever woman and has travelled all over Canada, the United States and Europe, and can describe the countries through which she has travelled as well as you or I who have our eyes. This is because her husband was with her and acted as her companion. As they went along the highways and byways he explained and described everything. Being blind and having nothing else to interfere with her thoughts, she remembered everything and was able to repeat the descriptions to the people at that meeting.
As I have said before, I hope consideration will be given to this request from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind. It will cost a few dollars, not very much. I feel that if even one department of the government would cut out some of its waste and extravagance-every department has some, as the ministers well know-what would be saved in that one department alone would be more than sufficient to cover the expense of this improved legislation for which the blind are asking at the present time.
I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is in the house. He knows that we give millions and millions of dollars to foreign countries to help them to improve the health of their people and for other purposes. I think it is requesting very little to ask that the government use a few dollars to try to improve the health of our blind people here at home, because I feel quite sure that if the legislation they request were put into effect it would give them a better outlook on life and by so doing would certainly help improve their health and assist them in many other ways. At the present time the only way they can see is through their fingers, by reading braille, through the use of talking books or through the eyes of a person who is fortunate enough to have sight.
I do not think I would be a very good member, Mr. Speaker, if I did not stand on my feet at this time and protest against something that is proposed for the post office in Peterborough. From what we have read and have been told it is proposed by the Post Office Department to put television cameras in the Peterborough post office in order to spy on

the postal employees. There are many reasons why I and, I feel, every Canadian citizen, should protest against the use of this kind of device. These cameras or viewers or whatever you want to call them are nothing but another step by the government to try to take away the rights of Canadian workers. It is an attempt to take away their privacy.
The men in the postal department will have no privacy at all. They will not even be able to blow their noses without someone watching them. I would judge that a dictatorship country might use this kind of device. In fact it might be used in Russia, and I suppose if a man over there were caught doing something he was not supposed to do he would be shot at sunrise. Thank the Lord that does not happen here. Surely in Canada, which is supposed to be a free country, this kind of method is not needed to keep our citizens honest. I believe I am right in saying that instead of making the postal employees more honest it may very well have the opposite effect. I know if I were working in a post office and knew that one of these cameras was watching me I would resent it every minute of the day, and I do not think I would be able to do the work as well as I could if the machine were not there.
I know personally most of the postal employees in Peterborough. They are an honest, hard working group of men and have done an excellent job. At Christmastime the men in the Peterborough post office, with the space they have available, were able to handle millions and millions of pieces of mail. I do not think they would have been able to do so if they had had these machines spying on them at that time. I wonder why they were picked to be spied on. I suppose after the cameras are installed in that post office they will be installed in the post offices in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and other places throughout the country.
I wonder why the Post Office Department was picked and not the customs department or the taxation department. Why not include members of parliament? Why not put a camera on us all the time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have no money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think we would be the first to object.


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have no money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No money?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Members of parliament have no money.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Most members of parliament are like goldfish in a goldfish bowl. They never have any privacy, but it would be just that much worse with television
The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser cameras on them all the time. I wonder how the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) would feel if he had a television camera on him at his desk in his office, at his desk here in the House of Commons, when he is combing his curly locks or when he goes to wash. I do not think he would like it.
This peekaboo idea of the Post Office Department is not needed in' Canada and, as I said before, only a dictatorship government would think of such a thing. I ask the Postmaster General if he would like to have a camera focused on him all the time. How would he like to have a camera on him when he went to the washroom, especially if it was a washroom like they have in the post office in Peterborough where there are no doors at all? One will not be able to go to the washroom to clean up without a television camera on him. The next thing they do will be to add a loudspeaker to these television cameras so that they can say, "Peekaboo, I spy you." Yes, one will not even be able to go to the toilet without having a television camera spying on him. To put such machines into a building where our workers are supposed to have rights is something that only a country like Russia would think of.
I understand that some 16 of these television cameras are to be installed in the Peterborough post office. Some of them will be dummies. In the past the men have never objected very much to the use of peepholes in post offices through which inspectors can watch and check on a man whom they suspect of not being honest, but they certainly do object to television cameras.
Personally I think it is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is going to cost over $50,000 to instal them, and will cause a great deal of hard feeling. The sooner the idea is thrown out by the Post Office Department the better for this country. This is certainly the last straw. I hope all the postal unions across the country will object and send their protests not only to the Postmaster General but to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself. I hope the citizens of Canada generally will do likewise. I have had hundreds of letters and telephone calls about this matter. I have not been able to walk more than a block in the city of Peterborough without two or three people stopping me and talking to me about it.
I mentioned a few minutes ago that if the waste and extravagance of even one department of the government were done away with there would be enough money saved to provide the new legislation that the blind are requesting. Let me give a couple of examples of extravagance. An article appeared

The Address-Mr. G. K. Fraser in the press a couple of weeks ago headed, "Queer Work for Queen's Printer", which reads in part as follows:
. . . the Queen's Printer at Ottawa has issued a special illustrated folder with order blank, covering a selected list of 26 publications. Prices range from 15 cents for a simple pamphlet to $8 for a much more elaborate work.
Doubtless some of this material properly comes from government printing presses but much of it, one would imagine, could well be left to private publishing which costs the taxpayer nothing.
Why, for example, should it be necessary for the Queen's Printer to put out expensive books dealing with "Radio Fundamentals" or the "Climate of Montreal" or "Logging in Canada"? Even more inexplicable is the publication of three handbooks on how to play and coach hockey.
I know that most of the members are interested in sports, but why should the government go in for handbooks of this kind? Why not allow the printing houses throughout Canada to do that work? These printing houses are paying back to this government 50 per cent or more of their income in taxes. They are helping to pay the cost of government and everything we have here. Now their business is being stifled by these books the government is getting out, because it is work that is being taken from these publishing houses.
One asks, where is this government going to stop? Surely there is a limit to this extravagant spending. I just wonder how long the taxpayers will stand it.
I have another example of waste. When I returned to Ottawa for the opening of parliament I discovered, as most of the members did, that our offices had been equipped with new fluorescent lighting. I walked into my office and turned the switch. Then I thought one of these post office T.V. cameras, along with kleig lights, had been turned on. I was almost blinded by the light. I looked at the ceiling and saw that the old light which had been in my office had been removed. It was in very good condition last year. The fluorescent lighting installed consisted of eight 40-watt fluorescent tubes. I believe that if any electrical engineer had been installing these lights he would have said that four tubes would have been plenty, perhaps even two. I feel sure that many thousands of dollars could have been saved on this lighting installation, and that the money saved would have helped to pay for this proposed new blind legislation.
On more than one occasion I have said that this government is a wait and see government. They never seem to make a move unless it is right before an election or unless they think it is about time they moved into the particular field concerned to get a vote. I was not very much surprised, therefore, to learn through the speech from the throne

that the government intended to bring forward legislation to provide equal pay for women in those industries under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This matter has been brought up before. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has introduced similar legislation, only on a broader basis, for over three years. Of course it generally takes this government about three years to wake up. I believe they are now waking up to the fact that if they do not act soon they are going to lose a lot of the ladies' votes in this country. It seems that all this government thinks of is where they can get another vote.
There is a strong feeling in this country, and I have found it not only in my own city but in many other places I have visited, that the Criminal Code is not strict enough in regard to the purchase and use of firearms. It has been brought to my attention that during the past year there have been a number of cases before the courts in which people only in this country a few months or a year at the most have used firearms for criminal purposes. I feel, and I know many others feel, that more teeth should be put in our Criminal Code to cover the sale and use of these firearms.
I have in my hand here, Mr. Speaker, a family allowance cheque in the amount of $33. It is dated October, 1953. The cheque was cashed in a grocery store in Peterborough on that date. As hon. members know, hundreds of these family allowance cheques are cashed every month in stores across Canada. On November 11, 1955, when this grocer went to the bank to pick up his cancelled cheques, he found a slip debiting his account with the $33 for the cheque and the word "forgery" opposite it.
My purpose in bringing this matter forward is to protest against the government taking so long to draw the forgery to the attention of the storekeeper. Evidently the forgery was in regard to the endorsation on the back of the cheque. The finance department has taken over two years to bring it to the attention of the storekeeper. In industry a cheque such as that would have been found within a couple of months at the most. This is a case where a government cheque bounced, but like this Liberal government it was rather slow in bouncing. It is said that the mills of the gods grind slowly, but surely the finance department ought to grind a little faster than that. These cheques are made out on a machine, and certainly when they were run through the trouble could have been found. Surely the person who did not get the cheque must have notified the welfare department long before the two years were up.

The Address-Mr. Studer
I do not believe it is fair in such a case to make the storekeeper the goat. The storekeepers across this country are acting as bankers to the government when they cash these cheques. Many of these women cannot get around to the banks because their husbands are working and the banks are closed on Saturday.
If events such as these were reported within two months the storekeepers and the other fellows would have a chance to check and perhaps get the persons who cashed the cheques. When it takes two years he has absolutely no chance. I do hope that the government will reimburse this particular storekeeper and other storekeepers who, after two years, have been notified that a forged cheque has been cashed by them.


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swifl Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the ten days that
are allotted to the throne speech debate are ten of the most valuable days to our country. During that period of time the members of parliament who are assembled here review the past, and as a result of their deliberations they anticipate the future. Therefore that period of time is of inestimable value to the people of Canada, because without them how can our country contribute to the stability, to the strength and prosperity and security of its people? If we do not know the conditions throughout the more than 5,000 miles that stretch from Newfoundland to Victoria, how can we formulate solutions that will be in the interests of this country of ours?
I think members of parliament are accepting their duty when they participate in this throne speech debate. Everyone throughout the Dominion of Canada appreciates their efforts. We have the greatest country in the world. There is no question of that whatsoever. However, we and the government are certainly not satisfied with the best. Nothing short of perfection plus will prevent us from using the utmost effort within our party to strengthen our country and provide policies that will be in the interests of all of our people.
We are not a mediocre people in Canada. We do not tolerate mediocre governments in Canada. During the last 20 years we have had a government, as everyone will agree, that has built this country up to be the best country in the whole world. If anyone doubts that let him name some other country in which he would rather live. If this is the best country in the world, how did it get that way? It got that way through the efforts of this government and through the efforts of the people who assisted the government and through the efforts of all the members of
parliament, even the opposition. In spite of themselves they make a contribution to the welfare of Canada.
As I say, we have the interests of all the people at heart, regardless of how they are represented, whether they are represented by members of the government or by members of the opposition. We are extraordinary people in Canada, and we are going to be extraordinary-plus people. We are a young and virile country with the same type of government, young and virile; therefore we cannot help but be greater and still greater in the future.
Some mention was made of congratulations to the mover and the seconder, and suggestions were made that perhaps we could dispense with them. We cannot dispense with them on such an historic occasion as this when, for the first time in the history of Canada, we had a woman move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is an historic occasion. It is just indicative of what is going to transpire in this Elizabethan age. Throughout all the eras, every country that has had the privilege of having a queen has prospered and gone forward, but not at the expense of some other country, and in its forward movement has taken along with it other countries that were willing to take the same step of having progressive queens. Therefore we are proud of our lady member. We think it is a prelude to some greater honours for her in the future. I am sure those occasions will arise.
We also have the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), who represents one of the great races of Canada. Many of them live in my constituency at Lafleche, Gravelbourg, Meyronne, Ponteix, Val Marie; Dollard, Lac Pelletier, and at numerous other places in western Canada. The ancestors of many of them came from Bellechasse, Dorchester, Beauce, and other French counties in Quebec. They are proud of the hon. member for Bellechasse, because he has a great future before him.
We are meeting here today in a body to discuss the future of Canada. I am pleased to present the situation in my own constituency, if it can be presented within the period of time allotted to me, which we all know is impossible. If I could describe what is in evidence in that constituency in a few short words, I would tell you that we have had our usual, normal crop. We have had our usual exhibitors. Again a lady from my constituency-in fact, almost a neighbour because anyone living within 30 miles of you out west is your neighbour-won the national honey championship, and I have some of her honey with me. If you are nice to me I will let you

The Address-Mr. Studer taste some of Mrs. J. W. Kent's honey. Again at the Chicago international hay and grain show in Chicago my constituents won honours in grain, and at the national show in Toronto Mr. Robins of Shaunavon won prizes this year as he has other years.
We have all the other good things. I told the house last year about many of our products. Unfortunately not enough people are taking advantage of the good things to eat that this country produces. If more of them did so perhaps some of our surpluses would, if not disappear, at least diminish. I am going to try to encourage you today to consume some of the abundance that this country produces.
We are not living in an age of scarcity; we are living in an age of Liberal abundance, and it should be available to all of the people of the world. It is our ambition to make that abundance available to all the people so there will be no underfed or undernourished people anywhere in the world. Certainly we also have difficulties. If there is one hope that any hon. member might have it would be that he could say in this House of Commons, "All is well in my constituency; all is well in Canada; all is well in all the world."
I think that is the ambition of every member of parliament, but we have not attained that yet. Why? Canada is more dependent upon conditions of world trade than any other nation. Four out of every five bushels of grain that are produced in Canada have to be exported; whereas the United States consumes four out of every five bushels that it produces.
We have our difficulties. We have control over our own economy, but we cannot control the economies of other countries of the world. Some of our socialist opposition friends think we can, but they have never been able to do it. No matter how good things are in this country, the Liberal government always makes them better. No matter how bad things are, the opposition can always make them worse. We in Canada are determined to make them better. We have no control over floods and hurricanes and surpluses, but at least the surpluses are gifts. Therefore we should avail ourselves of the good things that we have.
In spite of anything that has been said in this House of Commons regarding surpluses,
I do not know of anything that is nicer to come home to in southwestern Saskatchewan than a nice wife and nice granary full of wheat and a stable full of cattle and all the things that can be produced on the farm. There is nothing nicer to come home to, and
IMr. Studer.]
there is nothing sadder to come home to than an empty house, empty barns and empty granaries, and we have had many of them in southwestern Saskatchewan.
We have wheat problems, certainly; we have an abundance of them. One of them is the problem of the surplus that has been mentioned. If we are to have a problem I want a problem of abundance, because we had the problem of scarcity for many years during the 1930's in too many areas. What position are we in today that so many complain about? We are in the position of having one crop ahead. Who can complain about that?
I have been farming since 1916, working on a farm in southwestern Saskatchewan for 40 years. During the years of crop failure in southwestern Saskatchewan, when we used the P.F.A.A., my ambition was to get in the position where I would have one year's crop ahead. That was my ambition. Now we have one year's crop ahead, but unfortunately we have not one year's financing ahead. That is the problem we are going to try to solve, to provide one year's financing ahead. If any socialist is making any comment I do not think he should make it, because if we had a socialist system he would have no problem at all; he would not be here. We would have problems with reference to scarcities because the socialist system is a system of scarcity, a system of control throughout the world, a system of rationing throughout the world. There is no socialist who will deny it, so let us take the situation as we have it and provide surpluses and not scarcities. We do not want scarcity and hunger in the midst of plenty, nor poverty in the midst of scarcity.
What is the difference? In other words, we can supply a solution if we have abundance but the solution to scarcity has never been found. That has been the problem in every socialist country in the world. We are taking measures to alleviate the situation on the farms. Farmers are provided with bank loans, not available to all the farmers but available to many of them.
This is not, however, only a national problem; it is partly a provincial problem. There is no government I know of that is more subject to it or more vitally interested in it than the government of Saskatchewan. Now we have banks which have charters from the federal government. Almost every town has a credit union, and they receive their charters from the provincial governments. If the socialist provincial government does not like this situation in regard to banks, why do they not get off their seats? They are the best sitters in the world. The only exercise they

The Address-Mr. Studer
take is mental exercise in jumping to conclusions. If they got off their seats and did something about such situations, they would see what they could do to provide guarantees to the credit unions. Let the Saskatchewan government do something about it themselves in that province and provide the guarantee to the credit unions, interest free.
That is what they advocate; and why should it not be interest free, interest on our own money? We do not have to go to the Bank of Canada. My credit is not as good as a socialist's credit. I have not been able to get a loan from the credit unions at less than 6 per cent. If there is any money that is interest free, it should come from them. There is hope for the people of Saskatchewan. I understand the socialists are going to pool all their wealth, including the socialist members of this House of Commons, and form a socialist co-operative and lend money to the farmers of Saskatchewan, interest free. Good luck to them.
What has caused the present situation? We have had five crops in three years, and normally we have three crops in five years. We have had the competition of other countries, including the United States. We were not aware of this fact until some five socialists went to Washington, I believe some time last February. When the United States government saw the gullibility of the socialist members who went to Washington on their own they said, "This is it, boys; we will get rid of our wheat; no one will say a word." That is when the competition became heavy.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is wondering how much was lost to the farmers of Canada in the last three years by the speeches of the socialists in this country, I would estimate the amount at $1 million a speech; not that they are that valuable. Take the farm income for the year 1953 and figure it out in proportion to the number of speeches. It is as simple as two and two are four. The socialists in Saskatchewan say to send socialists to Ottawa. Between 1949 and 1953 we had the best conditions in Canada we have ever had. The socialists went out in the 1953 election campaign and said "Send the socialists to Ottawa; send fighters to Ottawa who will fight for you".
Well, the socialists had better start fighting. You do not fight with words only; you fight with facts. It seems there are too many people in this House of Commons among the socialists who have no alternative to offer except words. We have the same situation out in Saskatchewan. We have a tax and talk party and a talk and tax government. They are the pseudo-socialists living on the
capitalists. They are wine, dine and dance socialists, and their slogan is to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow the capitalist will die.
What are we trying to do in Canada? What are the farmers asking for? They are asking that we hold the price line. That is the first demand of the farmer in western Canada. That is what the wheat board is there for. You could get rid of the wheat at 80 cents a bushel, but I would rather get rid of one bushel at $1.40 and have one left in my granary. The farmer says to hold the price line. That is what the government are trying to do. They are providing some assistance-it would be hopeless to ask the provincial government to do that-so the wheat board will not become involved. They are trying to provide some assistance that will operate apart from the wheat board so that if something should happen like what happened in 1929 with the pools, the wheat board will not be lost.
There are not enough votes in western Canada to hold the wheat board if the rest of the people of Canada decide that we should have it no longer. So we have provided the means through the banks, which is insufficient; I know it does not cover everyone. The provincial governments can come to the rescue. If they do not wish to do that, they can step right out and buy 50 million bushels from the wheat board tomorrow. If the wheat board act does not provide for this we will pass the necessary legislation. It is like the government of British Columbia making a barter deal with the British government. Three years ago they made a deal with Britain for their salmon. If one provincial government can do it, another provincial government can do it, because they buy over $50 million worth of power corporation equipment, much of it from Britain. They buy their electrical equipment and Britain has it, and they buy many other things. What is to stop them from doing it in other provinces of western Canada. Get busy socialists; wake up; smarten up. Why sit idly by and talk and hope thereby you will be able to win yourselves another election? I do not know how long it is going to last, but the socialists had only one solution left that they thought would stand up and
hold water, and that was to barter.
*
You cannot accept sterling for your wheat. Mr. Gordon Bowen, British trade commissioner, came out and told the farmers this fall that acceptance of sterling would not sell an additional bushel of wheat, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce told you this morning. That is something the Liberals

The Address-Mr. Studer have been saying for a long time. It is wise to accept advice from the Liberals.
We had another meeting out in western Canada, as Charles Woodsworth has reported in the Western Producer of December 8, 1955. He told them exactly what the Liberals have been telling them for the last few years, that the wheat problem is a combination of economics and he did not believe price cutting was the answer. We do not believe it either. He did not believe in a policy or deals involving the acceptance of soft currencies between countries, as was pointed out this morning. He also pointed out that barter deals were just as dangerous. He said that Japan would take more Canadian wheat if she could send us textiles, and that would hurt the textile industry here.
We have a whole economy to take care of, not an individual one, so we are endeavouring to help the farmer to the extent the government can within its capacity, so the socialists have no argument whatever left. They have not a leg to stand on; but as I understand it that does not bother the socialists very much, as long as they have a seat to sit on.
However, they do have one argument left, and that is to feed all the hungry people of the world. That is what we all want to do, feed the hungry people of the world. They tell us to give it to India, give it to China, give it to Africa, give it to anyone who will take it.
I am ready to feed everybody, as there is nothing that hurts me more than to know that some people are hungry. But do you know that there are over 50 million monkeys in India, and that each one of them eats as much in a day as does a human being. In many cases they are considered to be sacred. I certainly have no intention of feeding the monkeys of India. All the monkeys are not in India; there are some monkeys in Saskatchewan. If there are no monkeys there, certainly there is some monkey business going on. If there is no monkey business out there certainly there is Tommy-foolery, and at last tommyrot is now setting in there. They will have to make more exertions out there if they are going to keep themselves in power.
We are making a big mistake here in Canada in not providing better storage facilities for our wheat. We should be making preparation in the good years for the bad years when we may have a shortage of wheat. We should provide permanent storage space as Joseph did in biblical days, when he prepared for the seven lean years during the seven fat years. The hon. member for


Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) said something about the Bible, the good book, this morning, and everything in it is just as true today as it was in those days. We should be providing permanent storage facilities for 5 million bushels for the lean years, and they could be provided right there at Swift Current or Maple Creek. That would be the safest insurance in which the government could invest.
We should provide every facility that would better the welfare of the farmers. We should do everything we can to guarantee the future of our farmers. We should have permanent policies, not something that is here today but will pass out of the picture tomorrow, as is advocated by many members of the opposition. The Liberals are famous for their policies. When they establish a policy it is permanent for the interest and welfare of the farmers of the country.
Who has a better right to these things? One thing I do not like is to hear people here in parliament or elsewhere say that the farmers are receiving too much consideration, that if you give them more they will be off to California. There is not one-half of one-half of one-half of one-half of 1 per cent of the farmers who go to California. I have been living in southwestern Saskatchewan for 40 years, and the only connection I have had with California is to eat a little lettuce or celery or drink some orange juice that may have been imported from there. If there are any people who should go to California, who have a greater right than the farmers who spend most of their lives producing food in the interests of the people, so they may have cheap food?
Who is it works so hard and who claims no benefits over and above what he should have for his own interest? Fourteen hours a day means nothing to a farmer, 100 hours a week means nothing to a farmer because he is willing to contribute that in the interests of the nation. He is producing in the national interest, for the benefit of all people, and what he produces is for the benefit of other industries. Those who work in other vocations can go to California, but the minute the farmer does he is blamed for doing it. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about that.
Another thing I want to mention is this. When the farmers receive $20 or $30 million in payments from the wheat board, which is their own organization, we see headlines in all the papers. Why should those headlines appear when it is the farmers' own money? On that same day over $40 million will be paid out to labour in this country-I wish it were $80 million-but we see no headlines in the paper when $40 million has been paid

to labour that day. But when-perhaps once or twice a year the farmers' own organization does make payments of $20 million or $30 million we see headlines all across the country. That leaves the impression that Canada is contributing that money.
Whatever may be contributed to the farmers in the future will come back to you tenfold with the blessings of the farmers of western Canada. They do not keep anything; they spend it all, and it comes back to you to keep the wheels going around in the industry of Canada. Do not begrudge any assistance that is given, because we will not call for assistance unless there is a deficiency in farm income and the figures show it. Have you ever seen a westerner stand up in this House of Commons and not vote to assist you even if it is a subsidy to the gold mines?
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming refer to gold, because they use the gold subsidy for political purposes out in wester Canada. Our socialist friends keep telling the people that the federal government is paying to have the gold taken out of one spot to be buried in another down at Fort Knox, Kentucky, instead of the facts relating to gold subsidies. Don't think for one moment that that does not hurt us in western Canada.
Farming should be brought up to equality with other industries. We should not want it otherwise. Perhaps the same could be said for our fishermen. We are all one great co-operative organization here in Canada, and we should be ready to help carry one another's burdens. All we wish to know is what the burden is and to what extent help is required. All governments should be co-operating one with the other in an effort to bring the people of Canada to the highest levels that any people could visualize. Everyone should be contributing to the welfare of Canada, because you cannot have one part of the economic body sick and hope to have a well body.
There is another thing I should like to mention at this time. People should be encouraged to eat our food. If there is one thing which I think is detrimental to Canada it is these food faddists, these people who go around telling us that we should not eat butter, we should not eat meat, we should not eat wheat or we will get too fat. They tell us if we do these things we will have a bulging waistline when we get to be 50 years of age. They tell us not to eat these things that have been acceptable since the beginning of time and have helped to build all nations. They tell us not to eat bread and meat and butter and all the other things we produce, to eat some synthetic food instead.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. (Brown) referred to the deterioration in the
The Address-Mr. Studer health of our youth, and I contend that you cannot raise a generation by having them get up in the morning and eat a piece of lettuce and then tear off to school. We should not be eating all these things we import from other countries when we have the food right here in Canada. Many people get up and take a sip of orange juice in the morning, a leaf of lettuce at lunch and some celery at dinner time. As I say, you cannot raise a generation of people on that sort of food.
My grandparents on both sides all lived to be over 90 years of age, and they did not live on rabbit food. They ate pork, potatoes, beef and pancakes all at the same meal, even for breakfast. They were not afraid that they were going to get fat because they had a good meal; they were not afraid they were going to die tomorrow. There are more thin people dying in Canada these days than fat people, if I read the statistics right. I like fat people, as they are the happiest. If a fat person laughs he does not laugh just in one place; he laughs all over. You never hear of divorces in fat families; they are too busy providing the things to eat to think of divorce. A man comes home and meets his fat-I should not say that-his pleasingly plump wife, and he has no time for a divorce. He puts his arms around her, or tries to, and everything is fine.
But what happens to these emaciated families when the husband comes home from work? He wants to know what is cooking for supper. She says, "You are getting too fat. I have a little lettuce here for supper". When that happens, that is the beginning of divorce.
I suggest that we put out of business all those factories producing synthetic foods, and that we stop buying in Canada imported products that are described as containing vitamins A, B, C and all the way to Z. If they have to have vitamins added to make them consumable, there must be something wrong with the initial products. We should eat the things we grow here in Canada. If that does not take up the surplus, it will at least take up part of it, and it will ensure that we have a nation of healthy and strong people to which all other nations of the world will look with admiration and envy. We want you to eat bread, beef, butter, potatoes and fish- especially fish, because we need brain food, as an hon. member intimated this morning. We can use much of that brain food in Canada.
What are the remedies? Sell the wheat. Hold the price line and sell the wheat. We have the best men in Canada selling that wheat; or, if we have not, we had better get them. We have men in Canada who have been selling wheat for 35 years. We took

The Address-Mr. Studer them over from the wheat pools, people with experience dedicating their lives to the selling of wheat. But that is not good enough for the socialist government of Saskatchewan. They say, "Eliminate those experienced men who are no good; let us sell the wheat on theory." If the leader of the socialists or the premier of Saskatchewan or the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) or anybody else thinks he can sell wheat, let us get rid of the wheat board and put them in. If we did that, we would find that tomorrow every farm in western Canada would be for sale. We shall have to develop new policies for wheat, but what the farmer wants is to sell the wheat. He wants the money from the sale of the wheat.
Some socialist members say they have been demanding advances on wheat sales since 1942. Would any farmer be one cent better off if they had been doing that since 1942? No. Let us look at it as it really is. You cannot spend the money twice. I do not want a lien on the future purchases of the farmers of Canada. I want the provincial and federal governments to provide assistance to the western farmer, so that he is not only one crop ahead but one year's financing ahead. That is what the governments as a whole should do, particularly the socialist government of Saskatchewan.
When a socialist provincial government is incapable of acting itself, the only thing left for it to do is to appeal to the federal government. When a school board becomes incompetent, it is replaced by an administrator. In Saskatchewan when a municipal council is considered incompetent and the government has to supply the revenue, it provides an administrator. Nobody in Canada likes administrators, but if there were a socialist government in the Dominion of Canada and a province like Saskatchewan was concentrating all its efforts on making appeals to the federal government for its financing, I can tell you that the socialist administration would place an administrator in the province of Saskatchewan instead of a government.
So I would advise the government out there to get busy and substantiate itself in the eyes of the people. There is only a certain period of time in which, you can make your living by talking; there comes a time when you must act. So we should provide suitable new policies, develop new uses for wheat and pay for its storage. All this would be in the interests of the whole economy in Canada.
Some farmers are asking for retroactive storage payments, and I think they are right in doing so. To indicate to you what a farmer receives for No. 4 wheat, I receive S1.07J in my elevator. We farmers have been

in a price squeeze. In Saskatchewan, over and above that, we have the tax squeeze. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
The following is a report on the farmer's share of money paid by consumers for food:
Out of every dollar spent for bread, the wheat producer gets 15 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for beef, the producer gets 62-8 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for eggs, the producer gets 76-8 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for fluid milk, the producer gets 51 '7 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for creamery butter, the producer gets 72-3 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for cheese, the producer gets 34-5 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for canned tomatoes, the producer gets 16-9 cents.
Out of every dollar spent for potatoes, the producer gets 51-7 cents.
This leaves us in the position that out of every dollar spent for bread, the producer gets less than half of the amount received by the next closest producer. That is one of the reasons for the situation in Saskatchewan. Another is that the percentage of farm cash income from all livestock and poultry products in 1954 in Saskatchewan was 26-1 per cent. All the other provinces were higher: 67-7, 70-8, 58-8, 77-1, 73-3, 48-1, 53-0, 66-1. This shows that our economy is based on wheat. If we adopt something else we are in competition with the rest of the farmers of Canada.
As I have only nine minutes left I shall try to draw to a close. Here we have a situation in which all the governments should try to co-operate with one another in endeavouring to alleviate the situation in Saskatchewan and throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. If there are more capable men in Canada, certainly we want them. The government is looking for them and hoping they will offer themselves, even at a personal sacrifice, in the interests of the people of Canada, so that we may all prosper together and so there will not be the feeling in any one section of Canada that one particular industry is profiting at the expense of another.
We have had the greatest government for formulating unity that Canada has ever had, but we still have a great advancement to make. We have to overcome the untruths that are told to the people in western Canada in order to gain political advantage, untruths that are told in the interests of some individual who hopes he might possibly be elected on what he tells the people. What we need is some honesty in politics and men who have the interests of the Canadian people at

heart, so we can progress as a country should progress. There should be such a thing as honour, even in politics.
Sometimes we find that is not the case. If any member of the opposition, including the socialists, or Karl Marx junior-the hon. member for Assiniboia-has any solution other than what we have heard so far, we shall be glad to hear it. They would be making a contribution to the welfare of Canada, and we should be glad to listen to them. I think at the bottom of their hearts even the socialists know that they would have to adopt an entirely different attitude from the one they have adopted in order to make this Canada prosperous and the great country it is destined to be.
There is only one danger facing this country. It is not that it has had a Liberal government for the past 20 years, because it has proven that it can take the people of Canada to the greatest heights of any country in the world. The only danger is that the people of Canada may listen to what the opposition say. I am sure that, as time progresses, even we Liberals who may be outnumbered at the moment in Saskatchewan will bring the truth to all the people of that province.
We have a great country, the greatest in the world, a country that one might say has set the pace for other countries. All is not lost in Canada. As long as we have stability in the government and a government that has the interests of the people at heart, we shall have a great future before us. There is no room in this country for socialist agnostics, or agnostics of any kind, but there is room for men who have faith-faith in the people and faith in a government that can carry the people to new heights. No prediction of the socialists has ever come true, much to their dismay and discomfiture. It has been in the interests of all the people of Canada that none of their predictions have ever come true.
All the people of the world, including Canadians, are proud of Canada. I am proud to be a Canadian and, although I do not like to take words from any other source, I have here a little United States schoolgirl's description of her country which I have applied to Canada. What this little schoolgirl wrote about her country appeared in an editorial in "Model Publications" of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and I have transposed and rearranged it to meet Canadian conditions. This is what she said, paraphrased:
I am a Canadian. Listen to my words, socialist, fascist, communist. Listen well, for my country is a strong country and my message is a strong message. I am a Canadian and I speak for democracy. My ancestors and relatives have left
67509-Hi
The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson
their blood on the cliffs at Louisbourg and the plains of Abraham. On the highway between Chambly and Longueuil and in the valley of the Richelieu, on the waters of the river Marne and in the shadows of the Argonne forest, on the beachheads of Dunkirk, Dieppe, Salerno and Normandy.
A hundred thousand and more of my countrymen have died for freedom. My country is their eternal monument. They live on in the laughter of a small boy as he watches a circus clown's antics. They live on in the sweet, delicious coldness of the first bite of peppermint ice cream on the first of July. They live on in the tenseness of a baseball crowd as the umpire calls "batter up", and in the referee's signal on the football field and hockey arena. They live on in the high school band's rendition of O Canada on Remembrance day and in the inspiring music from the peace tower.
They live on in the clear, sharp ring of a school bell on a fall morning. They live on in the triumph of a six year old as he reads aloud for the first time. They live on in the eyes of an Ontario farmer surveying his acres of corn and potatoes and pasture. They live on in the brilliant gold of hundreds of acres of wheat stretching across the plains of Saskatchewan. They live on in the milling cattle in the stockyards of St. Boniface and Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will not have enough time to conclude his quotation. This is a debate on which a time limit has been placed. The hon. member for Kindersley.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any amendment introduced on the floor of the house that has had more unanimous support from the farmers of western Canada than the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party. I am particularly pleased to take part in the debate at this time after hearing the official government pronouncement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the pronouncements we have just been subjected to from that quarter of the house which I am convinced is quite accurately known as the rump.
I am pleased to take part in the debate because I represent a constituency which is perhaps the most seriously affected by the congestion in wheat. It is seriously affected because we had a good crop in 1952, a good crop in 1953, and in many parts of the constituency an average crop in 1954, followed by a good crop this year of good quality grain. This means, therefore, that many farmers in the constituency of Kindersley still have wheat stored on their farms grown in the 1952 crop year. This emphasizes the problem and is some indication of the amount of grain in store upon some Saskatchewan farms.
I think what I must do in outlining an argument on the subject of wheat, and marshalling support for the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson Rosetown-Biggar, is first to explain to members from other parts of Canada the problems confronting us in western Canada and, second, to explain to members of the government the problems confronting us. I think the problem can be summed up by saying that the farmers are caught in a price cost squeeze. If we were to analyse the cost of production and the returns over the past few years I think it would indicate that this more than anything else is the problem that we are desirous of solving at the moment.
Operating costs are very high and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), the cost of production index for farmers stands at 241 on the basis of the period from 1935 to 1939 being 100. This gives us an indication that it is costing us over two and one-third times as much now as it did in the base period of 1935 to 1939, taking that period as 100. We find that since the war there have been increases in the prices of everything the farmer has to buy. We have been subjected to increases in the prices of farm machinery, fertilizer, gas, oil and grease, repairs, labour. Indeed, I cannot think of one item used on a farm which has decreased in cost since the war.
Tied in with that is the technological advance which has overtaken agriculture and which of necessity has increased the farmer's /cost of production, because included in the Technological advance is the use of such things ;as chemical sprays, chemical wire worm control, chemical insecticides which will increase productivity but also increase cost. It is a most inefficient farmer who will hesitate to use these things to obtain the maximum amount of production.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: At the supper recess, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out how the technological advances in agriculture had caused farm costs to be higher than they were in previous years. I was pointing out how the use of 2-4-D for weed control and Mergamma-C for wire worm control and the judicious use of fertilizers have also increased production. I do not think we can for one moment assume that the average production of wheat is as we term it today. We like to think in my area that the average yield for wheat is 16 bushels to the acre. I am quite convinced that with these technological advances the average yield in my area in a dry year would be closer to 18 or perhaps 20 bushels to the acre.

The Address-Mr. W. M. Johnson
While I am on this point I should like to indicate to members from other parts of Canada, who are not familiar with wheat growing, that the producer does not receive $1.40 a bushel. I have heard that statement used many times by people who do not know that the farmer pays the freight to ship his grain to the lakehead or to the coast terminals. In the case of a 19-cent freight rate, it would mean that the farmer would recover $1.21 a bushel for No. 1 northern. On the other hand, if he happened to have an inferior quality of grain which graded down to No. 1 feed, he would receive 79 cents a bushel. You can imagine the financial plight of a farmer who can only deliver 8 bushels per specified acre and receive 79 cents a bushel. The results of this are manifest in other aspects of the economy. It is not just a local problem; it is not just a situation out in Saskatchewan that we can blindly overlook.
Last year one of our major sources of unemployment was the farm implement industry. We find that in Canada in 1953 the wholesale sales of farm implements were $238 million. They were down 4-9 per cent from 1952. In 1954 the wholesale sales of farm machinery were $146-7 million, or a reduction of 38-4 per cent from 1953. In the three prairie provinces, where this situation is even more critical, it will be noted that in 1853 the sales amounted to $159,667,000 but in 1954 they dropped to $80,928,000, which is a decline of almost 50 per cent. Therefore it is only a matter of time until the dilemma and the quandary facing the western farmer are reflected in the other portions of our economy.
We have to make a thorough assessment of the problem. That assessment cannot be based on the terms used by the Prime Minister, because in a telegram to Premier T. C. Douglas of Saskatchewan on October 24, 1955, he had this to say:
On studying this problem carefully and having in mind our experience with the 1951 crop, it was apparent to us that only a relatively small number of farmers would in fact require assistance.
The statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce today certainly did not give any illumination to the situation, when he indicated that there was a slight shortage of cash.
In order to accurately assess conditions in the Kindersely constituency, which is representative of Saskatchewan, I invited the opinions of rural municipal councils throughout that area. I invited them to express their opinions to me, through resolutions, on the financial position of the farmer, on the suitability of bank loans as a temporary solution, and any other solutions which they would have to offer. The replies were most illuminating. They did not coincide in any way,


of the Saskatchewan wheat pool has termed it, a price of $2.30 a bushel. An increase of 20 cents a oushel would only mean an increase of one-third of a cent on a loaf of bread. We have already admitted the desirability of this two-price system, because the farmers who grow Durum and sell it on the domestic market receive $2.04 a bushel, but when it is sold in the export market the price is $2.74 a bushel.
We must turn then to a long-term proposal as a final and definite solution of this problem. Other solutions have been advocated by my colleagues from time to time and will be advocated in the future. We must turn to the long-term solution. The first point I have outlined is the necessity for stimulating trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that our actual exports were only declining gradually. He pointed out that the 1954-55 sales were 251-8 million bushels, and he was applauded by all government members of the house. But what the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not tell the house was that in an expanding world market, Canada's share was declining. He did not tell the house that the sales by Argentina in the same year were up 24 million bushels; that the sales by Australia were up 31 million bushels; that United States sales were up 65 million bushels, while Canada's sales, one of the major wheat exporters under the international wheat agreement, suffered a decline of 3 million bushels.
The minister stated that he was in favour of give-aways, when replying to the hon. member for Assiniboia; yet he said this morning that you cannot have barters and you cannot deal with certain types of currency because those would be give-aways. What I say is that if that will help us move some of our wheat, the mechanical arrangements can be worked out to the mutual benefit of all countries.
The final point which I should like to deal with in connection with the long-term program is the necessity for Canada to give some leadership in international affairs. Too often we have paid lip service to the two-thirds of the people of the world who are starving, and I think it is necessary that Canada show some initiative and follow the recommendations made by Dr. L. E. Kirk, retired chief of the plant production branch, food and agriculture organization, who in setting out several programs stated:
These would include: a persistent effort to reduce tariffs in order to facilitate world trade; encouraging the production of alternative crops in order to reduce those products in surplus supply; lowering costs of production by greater efficiency as a means of lowering prices; making grants in aid of

surplus products to needy countries either as outright gifts, or preferably, conditional on the importing country matching such grants with counterpart funds for use in their own economic development.
I think we have passed the stage in civilization when we can allow thousands, yes millions, of bushels of wheat to lie in the fields of western Canada to be blown asunder by storms as happened last December. Farmers lost as much as 1,500 bushels, which were just blown away. This should not be allowed to happen when people in other areas of the world are starving.
If we are to be realistic in considering the whole matter of defence, the matter of winning friends in the world, I think we should be able to squeeze enough water out of the $2,000 million of defence expenditures to provide $500 million a year for tn:s international organization in order that it may buy up surplus food from the surplus-producing areas and distribute it through the proper means to those areas which need it, those areas where men are starving. In the near future we will be needing the men in these areas as our brothers and friends.
This is a policy which we should launch ourselves so we will be ready for what may come in the future. I have pointed out the necessity for correcting the cruel price-cost squeeze which is facing western farmers. I have pointed out the inadequacy of some of the legislation which has been proposed, and I have referred to the legislation which western farmers and businessmen desire in order to remedy this situation. In conclusion I have pointed out what long-term solutions are necessary to solve this problem of grave national concern.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. While this may be somewhat repetitious, my congratulations are sincere. I have always considered the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) a most capable speechmaker, and I am sure we are all proud to have this lady Liberal member on our side of the house.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) showed a wide interest in Canadian affairs generally. I envy him his fluency and ease of expression, which most of the French-speaking members in the house seem to attain.
Some hon. members have complained of errors of omission in the speech from the throne. It has been said that it omits to mention a number of the problems which are besetting Canada that should have been mentioned. I think an error of omission was committed in that it did not say enough about 07509-12
The Address-Mr. Enfield the good things that have occurred in our country during the last year. It does contain a few cryptic comments about the country's prosperity and the growth we achieved, in 1955, and I think we can look back on that year as one of continuous expansion and terrific growth. During the past year Canadians spent more money, earned more money, produced more goods, bought more goods, sold more goods, exported more and imported more than ever before in the history of the country. We have a larger labour force working today than at any time in the country's history.
It is significant that as we meet this year our problems are concerned mainly with the growth in the economy and the inflationary aspects of what is occurring, rather than with unemployment and the deflationary trend about which we were worried when we met in January of 1955. My own particular constituency has been no stranger to this almost frantic growth which has occurred in Canada during the past year.
Reliable sources of information to which I have had access, namely the chairman of the metropolitan commission in Toronto-we call him the super mayor, Fred Gardiner-tells me that metropolitan Toronto is the third fastest-growing community on the North American continent, being surpassed only by Los Angeles, California and Houston, Texas. Upon examining the construction figures under the National Housing Act I find that more starts and finishes occurred in the metropolitan area than anywhere in Canada during 1955. I am pleased also to note that of the building activity under the National Housing Act in metropolitan Toronto, 43 per cent occurred right in the riding of York-Scarborough. So according to my calculations that would make York-Scarborough the fastest growing centre in Canada.
I think I am safe in saying that my problems are concerned chiefly with this growth, and I suppose hon. members will say that I am lucky to have problems of this nature rather than problems of other types. However, there is one situation I want to mention. It is a local matter, but as I go on I think it will be seen that this encompasses considerations which are of national concern.
As hon. members know, the planning for transportation facilities constitutes a terrific headache in our rapidly expanding centres of population in Canada. Railroads such as the Canadian National Railways are called upon to provide increases in their plant and equipment, in their trackage, in their assembly and marshalling yards, in their repair and storage buildings as well as in their rolling stock and other equipment. It is not always easy

The Address-Mr. Enfield to locate these railroad developments in areas where surrounding property values will not be affected adversely.
It was with some dismay that about 10,000 of my constituents and myself were faced with the decision of Canadian National Railways to establish a huge assembly and marshalling yard smack in the centre of a fine residential area in south Scarborough.
We commenced to make representations opposing this development in the fall of 1952, previous to the last general election, and the battle has gone on until just recently. During that time, delegations of citizens attended here in Ottawa before both the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the previous minister of transport. Representations were made to Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, in Montreal; briefs were presented to the railway officials in Toronto, and our case was laid before the board of transport commissioners in a hearing they held on the subject.
All during this period the railways were adamant in their stand in so far as the development was concerned. They needed the space. Their argument was that having purchased this land for this purpose in 1926, they felt they were on very strong ground in their desire to go ahead with the particular type of development, that is a marshalling yard, they had in mind.
To make a long story short, finally in December of this year I introduced another delegation of citizens, with the reeve of the muncipality, Mr. A. Harris, to the Minister of Transport in Ottawa. After our presentation the minister made arrangements to attend at Toronto and inspect the site personally. In the middle of December we were glad to show him the actual site of the problem. After viewing the area he mentioned that he would ask Mr. Donald Gordon and his advisers to take one more look at the situation and give it further consideration.
Accordingly, late in the same month of December we were called in by the Canadian National Railways officials in Toronto and, to our delight, we were presented by the railways with a new concept in planning for a metropolitan Toronto. Instead of a huge assemby yard, they had pared down their plans to a small storage yard and were able to release 100 acres of fine industrial land that could be sold for private purposes. This was the balance of their holding in that particular area. In addition, they are installing a service road along the boundary of this industrial land and a green belt some 200 feet in width which will protect the residential housing in the immediate vicinity.


The municipal officers of the township of Scarborough were, of course, very much elated over the prospect of this new inflow of industry and a consequently increased municipal assessment. We were all very happy that the residents were to be protected in so far as their property values were concerned.
Here was a situation where, to all intents and purposes, the die had been cast. A large corporation had made up its mind to carry out a development that dated back to 1926. Yet even at this stage the Minister of Transport saw fit to ask them to reconsider, which they did, and the matter has been solved to the lasting benefit of the people. I think it was a question of weighing what was most in the national interest; whether this development should continue as planned or whether the interest of the people in the area, who stood to lose some millions of dollars in property values through this development, was paramount. I am happy to say that in this case the people's side of the argument won out.
To my mind this is the finest example of democracy in action, and I must express my heartfelt thanks to the minister for his assistance and to the railway management for keeping an open mind even at this very late stage in the development. Most of all, I take off my hat to the civil action committee of the citizens. They did a tremendous amount of work in maintaining the enthusiasm of the people and in the presentation of their arguments; and, of course, the victory is theirs.
There is one thing that bothers me about the whole problem. The railway purchased a site some 29 or 30 years ago for a certain purpose. They stated the purpose at the time of the purchase, and they felt that this gave them an inalienable right to hold that land as long as they wished and develop it for that purpose at any time. Compare this with a private individual who buys a piece of land in a booming, growing metropolitan area. He holds it for many years and then, at some future time, he applies to the municipality for permits to construct the particular type of development he had in mind in the beginning. He is faced with zoning bylaws and regulations which say that the area has changed and that there is no particular reason why his plans should not change with it. This is called planning; and, of course, it is the only intelligent way to carry on development in growing metropolitan areas.
To avoid a repetition of this very large problem-and I must stress the fact that this was an acute problem for the some
10,000	people concerned in Scarborough-I would suggest to the C.N.R. that when they

purchase land for large developments of this nature they plan their activity in concert with the municipality concerned. If this were done, a plan of subdivision could be registered against the title of that land. A permanent record would be made of the intentions of the railway, the surrounding land could be zoned at the same time for industrial purposes, and the whole problem would disappear.
The C.N.R., as it is presently constituted, has the power to develop whatever property it owns in the way it wishes without reference to municipal or provincial planning bodies or councils. No doubt in the past the C.N.R. has had to have this power, but in the future, as our metropolitan areas grow and our centres of urban population grow, our railways will have to be more conscious of the planning of such areas so that problems such as the one I have just seen solved may be obviated.
It is with great respect that I make this suggestion. Having solved my particular problem and having learned something, I must take this opportunity to try to pass on what I have learned to those who are responsible for the administration of the railway.
There is another matter in which the people of my constituency and, I think, many people in Canada are most interested. This is the question of a national health insurance scheme. I should like to say a few words in that regard. It is my considered personal opinion that a majority of the people in metropolitan Toronto, at any rate, are sold on health insurance. The only question that remains is whether a health insurance scheme taken out of private hands and placed on a governmental basis can provide cheaper, more adequate and wider coverage than the presently constituted private schemes such as the Blue Cross and P.S.I., which are now in operation. I feel personally that that will be the case. I feel that on a universal basis, cheaper, better and wider coverage can be offered to the public, and I think Canadians are ready and eager to accept such a plan, provided they will still have a free choice of doctor or hospital.
However, a perusal of the recent proceedings of the federal-provincial conference leaves it far from clear, to say the least, what we may expect in this connection. The government, through the Prime Minister, indicated its willingness to proceed with a plan of national health insurance if participation by a substantial majority of the provinces representing a substantial majority of the people were assured.
Reading these proceedings it is rather difficult to determine from the comment or 67509-12J
The Address-Mr. Enfield lack of comment by the provincial spokesmen whether such participation will be forthcoming. The provinces naturally are concerned with the fiscal problem, the question of whether under a hard-pressed financial structure they are going to be able to afford to participate in a national health insurance scheme. I was encouraged, therefore, when I learned of the recent proposal of the Prime Minister regarding fiscal arrangements with the provinces. I calculate that under that proposal there will be, in total, additional payments of some $67J million to the various provinces over and above the present tax rental schemes.
The proposed new dominion-provincial fiscal arrangements may strengthen the provinces' financial position to the point where they may strengthen their resolve with regard to health insurance. I think what the provinces need is to have some concrete plan placed before them in the way of a national health insurance scheme with definite ideas as to its cost and, of course, indications of how the money is going to be raised to pay for the scheme. From our point of view, as the Prime Minister pointed out in the conference, the prerequisite to the institution of such a scheme is that it be proven or indicated that the scheme will be in the national interest and will affect the majority of the people of Canada. Only on such a basis will we have the constitutional power to go ahead.
In the meantime the federal government is continuing to consider the matter, in that a committee has been set up composed of representatives of the federal government and of the provinces who I understand are to hold their first meeting to discuss the matter on January 23 next. I would suggest to our federal representatives that they adopt an aggressive, positive and optimistic approach to the question of national health insurance, because I think the provinces will need that approach if they are to be encouraged to enter the scheme.
Even if such a scheme were limited to hospital insurance alone it would be a great boon to the Canadian people. Hospital costs are the biggest single item when it comes to sickness. You can put off your own family doctor for a few months so far as his bill is concerned, but I understand you cannot even vacate your room in a hospital unless you have first made arrangements to pay your bill.
In the meantime we are of course continuing our activity under our national health plan. The philosophy underlying the national health plan of course is that you cannot have national health insurance until you have the necessary hospital space and other medical

The Address-Mr. Enfield facilities to look after the people when the plan is operating. We are fortunate in Scarborough in having a newly constructed Scarborough hospital which is on the brink of its grand opening. We received a grant of $197,500 under the national health plan system of grants to assist in its construction, and a further $40,000 was received by the hospital from the Atkinson foundation in Ontario. The Atkinson foundation is an organization established by the late Joseph E. Atkinson to carry out charitable activities in the province of Ontario. In the field of health alone this foundation has paid out since its inception in 1942 nearly $2 million in health grants, and has authorized the future payment of nearly $1 million more.
There is no overestimating the importance of such charitable organizations, and with the terrifically increased demand for medical and hospital facilities that would accompany the institution of a national health insurance project the work of foundations of this kind will become increasingly more important and necessary in the field of health grants.
Our social welfare measures of course have to be paid for, and Canada's ability to pay depends on our resource development. Over the past few years our tax policies and political stability have encouraged the heavy inflow of large blocks of foreign risk capital, vestment in our resource industries. I was surprised to note the grave concern of the particularly United States capital, for investment in our resource industries. I was surprised to note the grave concern of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) in his speech on January 12 last about the extent of United States capital investment in this country. I say, thank heaven for it. Without large and substantial amounts of risk capital we would not be enjoying the high level of business activity, the sharp and steady rise in our standard of living and the attainment of the style of living to which we would all like to become accustomed.
Natural resources are no good to anyone if they are left in the ground. If they are left there long enough they are no longer natural resources. The other night the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) gave us a very interesting and graphic picture of what technological advance and change can do. He pointed out that we may soon be able to fly to the moon, using the new sources of energy that we are producing. I suspect that when he spoke of the third province that was to fall to the Social Credit party he might have been thinking about the moon. I think it is important to recognize that substitution through technological advance may outmode products, materials and sources
IMr. Enfield. 1
of energy so that they are no longer resources, and we must make hay while the sun shines.
The resources we have to develop can only be developed with foreign capital in the present stage of the growth of this country unless, of course-and I doubt that this would occur-a socialist government were able to take every aspect of the whole economy and organize it completely.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: A Liberal government did it during the war.


Frank A. Enfield: A very interesting point has been raised, and no doubt the hon. member who interjected it will have ample opportunity to follow it up on future occasions. In any event, as far as I can see the problem of heavy United States investment is confined generally to the field of labour-management relations, not fully but chiefly. A large United States corporation, for example, may look upon the Canadian branch of its operations as expendable in the face of very heavy trade union pressure. The least they might do is to use the Canadian situation as a ground for experiment. Perhaps it was this to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was referring.
In this connection I am most happy to see in a recent speech by Mr. 'VV'alter Gordon, chairman of the royal commission studying Canada's future economic prospects, that the problem of heavy foreign capital investment in Canada is one of the most important matters that the commission will be studying, r look forward to the results of that study. I think they will be very illuminating. I might take this opportunity to commend Mr. Walter Gordon and his commission on the aggressive, vigorous, and energetic attack they are making on the matters arising from their undertaking.
Well, a booming economy always seems to leave a certain amount of labour unrest, a certain amount of conflict between labour and management, in its wake. Unfortunately my riding has been no stranger to this during the last year. The Canada Wire and Cable Company has been shut down for some time by a strike. This plant is located in the section of my constituency known as Leaside. We have two very large Frigidaire plants, both of which are idle at the present time as a result of the strike in the General Motors organization. One cannot help but feel very grave concern over the privation and suffering that the families of the workers at these factories must be undergoing because of the long period of idleness. I can only express my hope that the parties concerned, in the unions and in management, will be able to

meet in the immediate future and find a common ground on which their differences can be settled.
In conclusion may I say that while 1955 has been a big year for Canada, I expect an even bigger year in 1956. We have our difficulties in certain well-defined areas of our economy. I think it would be too bad, however, if we allowed our good judgment to be blurred by such difficulties in our approach to the over-all picture. Domestically we are very strong indeed. In the international sphere Canada has never enjoyed greater stature, resulting from the unflagging efforts of our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We hope we will hear much from him later on his extensive coverage of world affairs and his extensive travelling since the last session. Our prestige has never been higher at the United Nations. This results from the work of our delegation headed by our very capable Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I for one, therefore, Mr. Speaker, look to the future with very great optimism indeed.


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: It is an honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the motion moving the acceptance of the speech from the throne. It is also an honour to be here and to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the house of my willingness and desire to co-operate with them in every way possible. I am indeed pleased to see again the four or five ministers and the numerous members of the opposition across the floor who campaigned so vigorously against me during the last election in Restigouehe-Madawaska. It was indeed unfortunate that the election took place right between our famous salmon fishing season and our hunting season, because these hon. gentlemen could have avoided wasting their time.
It is a pleasure for me to congratulate the new members. I regret that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent), who represents the riding located next to mine, does not intend to speak. I thought possibly he could help me convince his father that the government should do something for the maritime provinces. We do have power, and we could sell him the power he needs to build the industries he promised in Temiscouata riding. May I say this. I very much appreciate the co-operation and assistance I received from thousands of former supporters of the Liberal party who voted Conservative, many for the first time.
The Address-Mr. Van Horne


An hon. Member:: And probably for the last.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I invite hon. members across the floor to follow their example. I also express my thanks to the numerous supporters of the Social Credit and C.C.F. party who actively supported the official opposition, thereby informing the government in no uncertain way that we are dissatisfied and discouraged with the indifference and lethargy with which this country has so long been governed. The speech from the throne confirms this fact, and makes it abundantly clear that the government is indeed indifferent to the needs of the Canadian people.
My riding of Restigouehe-Madawaska stretches some 210 miles right around the top of the province of New Brunswick. Our breathtaking rivers, the Restigouche, Upsal-quitch and Matapedia, have played host to the world's famous anglers, and our guides on those rivers are recognized to be the greatest guides in the world. The people are hardworking and for the most part are engaged in lumbering, farming, fishing and pulpmill operations. All of us have endured our full share of indifference on the part of the federal government. We are, Mr. Speaker, fed up with the Liberal government.
The riding of Restigouehe-Madawaska is a vital part of the long forgotten and neglected maritime provinces. Alas, our economic history since confederation has not been a happy one. From the bleak stretches along the shores of New Brunswick over to the closed mines at Inverness and to the far reaches of Madawaska county, deserted farms, deserted homes, deserted mining villages, closed factories and shops, mark the long procession of our young people who have to leave the maritimes, forced to go elsewhere to make a living. They were driven from our land by the same economic conditions which yesteryear drove our forefathers from the shores of Europe. Why must we become emigrants' again from the maritime provinces, driven like nomads on the desert, from place to place, to find work and a chance to make a living? The burden of education becomes greater and heavier as we raise our sons and daughters in the certainty soon they will be forced to leave our beautiful part of the country to go elsewhere to find jobs. How can traditions be established and maintained in our families if they are going to be continuously uprooted?
We in the maritimes are going to have our place in the economic sun of Canada. Such men as Premier Smallwood are going so far as to say publicly that unless the federal government wakes up to our needs Newfoundland will leave confederation. This young

The Address-Mr. Van Horne generation is on the march, regardless of party politics. Mr. Smallwood is supposed to be a good Liberal. We are going to get a new deal for the maritime provinces. If this government does not want to give us justice and our economic rights, we are determined to replace it with a government that will. We say this, give us a new deal or quit.
As Hon. Hugh John Flemming, premier of New Brunswick, whose courage and devotion to the cause of the maritimes have earned him the reputation of being an outstanding champion of maritime rights, said recently before the Gordon commission:
Though it is my firm conviction that the great economic experiment undertaken by confederation to make trade flow artificially east and west instead of naturally north and south was like trying to make water run uphill-it has turned out to be like our own famous magnetic hill in New Brunswick-a definite illusion.
At the time of confederation, the voice of the maritimes was heard and heeded throughout Canada. It will be heard again.
New Brunswick is no longer content to remain one of the weakest links in the Canadian confederation. Last Friday I tendered a resolution calling for a new deal in the maritime provinces. It has since been amended to conform to the rules of the house. What we need in the maritimes is an entirely new deal. We feel that the government should put into force immediately an over-all new deal plan to ensure that economic development in the maritime provinces will cease to remain stagnant and will keep pace with the modest economic progress of central Canada.
We ask you for federal financial assistance to help develop our natural resources. We ask you for drastic reductions in transportation rates to the full extent needed to permit competition by maritime producers and manufacturers in confederation-made markets. We ask for regulations promoting and enforcing the development, the manufacture, the processing and the use of the idle and wasting natural resources of the maritimes, such as timber limits now owned and controlled by a few and immobilized by them and going to waste. We ask for regulations controlling the exportation of raw products, such as pulpwood in an unprocessed and unmanufactured state. We ask for remedial measures to offset the ill effects on our economy in the maritimes of the St. Lawrence seaway project. We ask for loans for capital development. We ask for the immediate implementation of a public works program to build the Chignecto canal, and to provide better and more adequate shipping and terminal facilities at our ports, such as Saint John, Dalhousie and Campbellton. We ask the

government to build year-around ports, such as at Jacquet River, to handle the ore coming from the new mining area near Bathurst. We ask you to build the long talked of Campbell-ton-Cross Point bridge. We ask you to erect new post offices. We ask you, the government of this country, to have the Canadian National Railways build new stations where needed, such as at Edmundston. We ask ydu to complete and to entirely pay for the trans-Canada highway in the maritimes.
There are those sitting across the floor of the house who may say, "Would you have us do more for the maritimes than we would do for central Canada?" I answer by saying, "Would you have this country continue indefinitely with one part prosperous and the maritimes in a continuous depression?" That is what is happening today.
The whole economic theory behind confederation was that we in the maritime provinces could profitably trade artificially east and west rather than trade naturally with our pre-confederation markets to the south. And when I see an appropriation like the $26 million voted to the Colombo plan to develop hydroelectric power in Pakistan, while on the same occasion the government refused even to endorse our loan and sign our note so we could borrow money cheaply to build the Beechwood project, I say it is time to have another look at a government that would do such things. I certainly invite my friends across the way who are members of the Liberal government to force the heads of their party to act, to move and do something while there is still time.
In speaking of the modest prosperity in central Canada, my attention was forcibly drawn the other day to the implication which resulted from the facts set out in the admirable speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that Canada is not really making progress.
I should like to commence my observation by addressing a few remarks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to tell him how the people of my riding resent his inactivity and indifference in the manner in which he has been lately conducting the affairs of his department. I shall speak on the question of health in French, and I shall return to English afterwards.
(Translation) :
I now turn to family allowances. I will concede that, when they were initiated


Mr. Habel:: Your leader opposed them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not true. The basis used in setting the amounts of family allow-



IS, 1956

[Stage Direction]
ances was the cost of living in 1944 or 1945. Inasmuch as the cost of living in the meantime has almost doubled, will anyone suggest that, if this government were honest towards the Canadian nation, it would not consider it to be its duty to raise or even double family allowances.
I keep getting hundreds of letters urging me to express to the government the dissatisfaction of the Canadian people for this lack of honesty which prevents the government from recognizing its duty towards the mothers and children of this country by refusing to
increase family allowances.
*
The same is true of disability pensions. As you know, one must be totally and permanently disabled to be entitled to such a pension. In other words, you have to be unconscious to get it, unconscious to keep it, and unless you walk about toting a coffin under your arm, you cannot draw that pension.
If that pension plan is supposed to help the disabled, should not the government recognize that the pension should be paid to anyone unable through illness to earn a living at his ordinary trade or occupation? You may say that, to a certain extent, it comes under provincial jurisdiction but every government and every Canadian knows that the Liberal government has everything to say when it comes to administration and regulations regarding disability pensions.
I would also like to mention our older men and women, who are forced to retire at 65.
Nothing stifles initiative and the joy of living so much as the realization that once you reach age 65 your services will no longer be in demand. We should protect our citizens who, after a long life of hard work, are anxious to work in order to retain their health and happiness. We must afford them the opportunity of taking up another occupation, if their health is adequate, and if they are anxious to continue to work. I am not claiming that they should continue in the same line of work as the one in which they were engaged throughout their life. Laws, however, should be passed to help them, since it is a great pity to see how the health of these men and women is affected immediately upon their retirement. Where would the Liberal party be today had the prime minister been forced to retire at 65, along with the other members of his cabinet? There would no longer be any party.
The Address-Mr. Van Horne
The general tendency within our industries is to enforce compulsory retirement at age 65. This affects not only the health of those who have to retire, but also the entire economy of the country.
I also wish to deal with the matter of old age pensions. 1 cannot understand the thinking of the Liberal party leaders as regards the means test. Under our laws, one has to be poor to be entitled to the pension, one must be very careful to stay poor to keep it, up to the age of 70. Not only must one be poor to obtain the pension, one must also stay poor to keep it. So, a man who worked hard all his life and managed to put something aside, either in the form of real estate or in cash, is penalized by the government for having had the foresight of saving his money, whereas the spendthrift is assured of the old age pension. I am convinced that my electors want the old age pension to be granted to anyone, without the means test, at the age of 65 and the amount raised to $60 a month. If the government had been loyal to the Canadian people, it would have raised the amount of this pension in accordance with the rise in the cost of living.
When, if ever, will the government wake up and give us a national health insurance plan? Is not the government ready to admit that, if Canada does not have today a health insurance plan, it is due precisely to its cowardice and complacency towards the Canadian people?
Is not the government ready to admit that, before handing out huge sums of money to foreign countries, allowing them to enjoy free medical care, it would be its duty to see to it that we, the people of Canada, have as much as the government is ready to give to the citizens of these foreign countries? Alas, for the past five years the Conservative opposition has been beseeching you to put in force immediately a national health insurance plan for our sick people.
Take the poor man with a family who has to live by the sweat of his brow-
An hon. Member:: That hurts!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: His chief worry is the thought that he would not have enough money to pay the hospital and doctor's bill if his children fall sick. When will the government recognize that, before giving over a billion dollars to Britain, it should give some to our

The Address-Mr. Van Horne Canadian citizens? Is the Canadian govern-^ injustice on the people of Canada; that is ment not ready to give as much to Canadian' Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, citizens as to foreigners from Europe- J


An hon. Member:: Your party voted for it.
(Text) :


Jean Lesage: Get a translation of this.


Owen C. Trainor: It must be good.


Jean Lesage: Say it in English.


Mr. Robichaud:: Say it in English.


Jean Lesage: Say it in English. Is this your party's policy?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
(Translation) :


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On behalf of all my fellow citizens, I urge the government to concern itself more actively also with the urgent question of mental health. Even our opponents from the other side of the house should concern themselves a little more with the achievement of things like that instead of coming to the house to make us waste our time.
The same thing applies to mental disease, as it does too to old age pensions or pensions to veterans. You are not doing your duty to the Canadian people, and you know it.
Of course, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare certainly is interested in the health of the people of this country, but I am unable to understand how it is that he is unable to convince the government that it should give the citizens of this country as much protection and assistance in the field of health as it does, for instance, to foreign countries.
Consequently, and to sum up my remarks, I request the immediate introduction by the government of legislation with a view to establishing a national health insurance plan, and also with a view to amending existing legislation so as to extend the old age pension to every person aged 65 without a means test.
Moreover I ask that this government help our hospitals that are now unable to collect more than 40 per cent of their bills because their patients cannot pay. I therefore believe that if the federal government does not want to help hospitals and does not want to do its duty by setting up a national health insurance plan, it should at least help hospitals that are unable to collect outstanding accounts.
(Text) :
I would like also, Mr. Speaker, to speak about an organization which is working an


Donald Methuen Fleming: Be quiet; grow up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the United States they have an act called the national housing act. In Canada we have an act corresponding to it called the Central Mortgage and Housing Act. And it was none other than your own Mr. Bates who, in the May issue of Canadian Business, said that in the United States there is a lower down payment under their housing act than under ours and also there is a lower interest rate, namely 4J per cent instead of 5 per cent. There is a longer amortization period, namely 30 years instead of 25. The United States give veterans a preference. They have no down payment to pay on a house. Furthermore the down payment is very much lower than the down payment required in Canada.
The biggest and the most unjust thing about this Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation is that it refuses to recognize a mortgage loan on a house which is already built; that is, an older house or a house not built to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation standards. What does that do? It prevents a fellow with an older house from selling it and getting fair value because he cannot get a mortgage loan that equals the mortgage loan that Central Mortgage gives on a newer house built to their standards. In other words, it is the same thing as if the government came along and put their hand in the pocket of a home owner and said, "We are going to take away this value from you, because we refuse to recognize the mortgage loan value of your house".
If the national housing act in the United States is able to recognize almost the same loan value on a house which is already built as on a new house, then why cannot the Canadian government do the same? The failure of the Central Mortgage and Housing Act to recognize a loan value and lend money on a house which is not built under the Central Mortgage and Housing rules is killing the value of the older houses, of houses not built to Central Mortgage and Housing standards. This stupid restriction is taking away value, like a man who puts his hand in your pocket and removes all the money. It takes away the equity which people have invested in homes that are not built under the Central Mortgage and Housing specifications.
In other words, some people in this country cannot build or buy a home of their own. Those people are denied the right to obtain a mortgage loan on their property under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Act. In the United States a family may purchase a home through this national housing act and maintain a mortgage on it which goes up to 90 per cent of the value of the house whether new or old. In Canada it must be a new house built under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and the down payment required is far more than the average citizen can afford to pay.
If these required amendments to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to bring the act up to par with the national housing act in the United States and provide the same benefits were to mean the expenditures of large sums of money on the part of the Canadian government, I would say that possibly we should study the matter further. The government is denying countless thousands of Canadian citizens the chance to acquire a home.
I would also like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, in regard to agriculture. On November 8 I sent a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture saying:
Hon. James W. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
After careful study of urgent and deplorable problem of the potato farmers in the maritime provinces I urgently suggest and strongly recommend the immediate adoption of reciprocal tariff measures between the United States and Canada for importation of potatoes into Canada and the immediate adoption of a diversion program based on same lines and same prices as now in operation in the United States. The government is sitting down on the job in regard to the solution of the potato problem. The farmers need and require immediate action if disaster is to be averted.
I have not received any answer to that telegram, but as a result of the tremendous pressure which was put on the Minister of Agriculture finally at the eleventh hour he consented to give a little assistance, but it was too little and too late; it was not enough, and it did not solve anything. It did not get the potato farmer out of the plight in which he had found himself for three long, hard years. These farmers have seen their farms mortgaged to the hilt. They have had their backs against the wall, unable to carry on.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture why his government insists on selling butter to the communists at 37 cents a pound when the poor people of this country must pay 70 cents a pound for it. I ask him if that is right when there is so much utter poverty in Canada. The government seems to be worried about surpluses and where to store those surpluses, and this at a time when there is utter starvation in this country. Any hon. member can prove that to the government.
It was a pleasure during my campaign to know that the Minister of Transport was in my riding campaigning actively against me.
The Address-Mr. Van Horne His presence in my riding served a most useful purpose, for it drew attention to the fact that the Canadian government had for years without number neglected the transportation facilities of the maritime provinces and of my own riding in particular. I ask the Minister of Transport why he has not seen fit to provide year-round docking facilities at Jacquet River, New Brunswick, which would be a natural outlet for the production of the mines near Bathurst. This locality furnishes one of the best opportunities on the eastern seaboard for a year-round port. I understand that the minister did take time to investigate the pitiful condition into which the port of Dalhousie has been permitted to deteriorate.
The federal government is always so anxious to know how the St. Lawrence seaway will affect the United States, but it never concerns itself one bit with how it will affect the maritime provinces. The history of the past 20 years in the maritime provinces is one of complete disregard by the federal government of our economic problems. It is true that for many of those years we have had in the maritime provinces complacent, dormant and weak provincial Liberal governments. I remember well the Liberal convention of 1948 when Hon. John McNair requested the federal Liberal government of that time to do something for the maritimes. But that was all that was ever done by the Liberal governments in the maritimes in the way of acquainting the federal government with the problems that existed down there.
I should like to say a word about the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Donald Gordon has indicated in effect that he is out to wreck the unions of the C.N.R., and he is doing just exactly that. The Liberal government is standing idly by and permitting him to do it. It is also permitting Donald Gordon to make the C.N.R. unsafe. I recently investigated one case where an engineer and fireman were killed in an accident and I can assure you that the whole tragic accident was wrapped up in negligence and skulduggery and covering up on the part of the C.N.R.
Donald Gordon is wrecking the unions of the C.N.R. in another way. Maintenance and repair work in the shops is being given out to contractors, which means that employees who for long years have fought through their unions for whatever rights they now possess automatically lose all those rights the minute they are laid off and are rehired by the contractors to do maintenance work on the tracks or repair work in the shops.
According to information we have received from the union, as of May 1 next year all repair work in the shops will be done by
178	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Robichaud contract. That cuts out the unions entirely, and it does not give the men a chance. After having worked so hard to acquire these rights the employees of the C.N.R. should not have them taken away overnight. It is true that many of them will be hired by the contractors but it will be done without any question of the union, their rates of pay may even be reduced, there will be no overtime, and they will not have the benefits which they have obtained through years of negotiation with the C.N.R.
Recent events have served to prove how farseeing was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when years ago he foretold and stated publicly what the government should do for the employees of the C.N.R. in order that their rights might be recognized and their unions safeguarded. There is no question about it that today the C.N.R. is in the position where its employees are forced to take drastic action precisely because the federal government did not wish to recognize their rights. I see that my time is about up.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I certainly feel that these remarks will not be brushed aside. I feel that I should make my debut by at least stating that I believe that after making this speech and after saying what we need in our part of the country, you will at least take the time to go down and see for yourselves that what I have said is true. If you do that and if you do something about these problems you will have the public support required.
I should like the Minister of Transport to come down to my riding once more because he was prejudiced when he was there the last time. Here is what happened. Every election time they get plans ready for a new station at Edmundston, but as soon as the election is over the plans go into the basket and then at the next election they start all over again. This has been going on now for 20 years, and frankly we do not like it.
In closing I want to say that I come up here to try to do a job. What we are after are results. You fellows can have all the credit as long as you give us results. Just come across with something for us. Build the Cross Point bridge, build the station at Edmundston; do these things, and we will tell you that you are a good group of fellows.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, like those who have preceded me in this debate I too at the outset should like to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want also to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his cabinet upon their wise


decision in selecting the experienced and most able member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The choice was most appropriate as the speech advocated the introduction of a bill to provide that women shall receive pay equal to that paid to men for equal work in industries which are under federal jurisdiction. It was most logical that the hon. member, representing as she does the electors of a great constituency, speaking as one entitled to speak in the name of all the women of Canada, should be the first one to congratulate the government for another move in the right direction and for the adoption of a policy which will protect and widen the freedom of thought, speech and action for which all citizens of our great country are so grateful.
(Translation):
The seconder of the address (Mr. Laflamme) has clearly shown that the electors of the beautiful agricultural constituency of Belle-chasse were well advised in sending him here as their worthy representative in the government of the country. The electors of that constituency may without fear increase the confidence they have placed in him at the by-election of last fall; his electors, the majority of whom practise the noble profession of farming, may rest assured that their interests are in good hands.
(Text) :
It seems rather difficult to explain why the leader of the official opposition should classify the speech from the throne as uninformative and containing less information than any previous speeches from the throne. Anyone who reads the speech carefully-and this should include the hon. member who has just preceded me-will surely find more than the revision of two acts and the amendment of ten others.
Was the hon. member who has just spoken forecasting the policy now being formulated at his party's convention, which is being held at the present time in Ottawa? May I repeat in English in a very few words what he has said in French, for the immediate benefit of the few members of his party now sitting in this house? He asked the government of the country to double family allowances and to increase the old age pension to $60 per month without any means test. Is this a forecast of what is to be decided by the convention being held at the Chateau Laurier? I am sure the position of his party was quite different when the law was passed a few years ago introducing the family allowance in this country.
Anyone who reads the speech from the throne carefully will surely find much more

-than has been presented to us for our consideration by the short amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. This government, which we on this side of the house are prepared and proud to support, has been a government which deals in action, a government ready to meet criticism and accept suggestions, a government whose past history will show that vigorous and searching inquiry has infallibly proven its trustworthy integrity and zealous devotion to the welfare, prosperity and freedom of a great nation.
How can a well-thinking representative of the Canadian people justify an accusation of indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in the face of serious national problems, against the present government of this country? Was it not a Liberal administration under the great leadership of Wiliam Lyon Mackenzie King that so wisely and so successfully administered the affairs of this country during the second world war? And today is not our country under the able leadership of our present Prime Minister, of whom all Canadians are so proud and from whom the free nations of the world are so earnestly seeking co-operation and advice?
Is Canada today not taking a leading role in the international field? Were we not ably and successfully represented when we had our Prime Minister touring the world on a mission of peace and good will? Are we indifferent when we have men like our present minister of external affairs, our ministers of national health and welfare, of trade and commerce and of labour, or others, leading our Canadian delegations at Geneva and at NATO meetings, or in our determination to ensure a lasting peace for the free nations of the world? Are we so indifferent and can we be rightfully accused of inertia when our country's economy, under the present administration, is constantly increasing and, within an over-all climate of political and economic freedom, reaching records never dreamed of by our present generation? Are we inactive, and is our Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act inefficient, when our construction of new homes reaches the fabulous figure of 130,000 units in a single year and when our construction program exceeds $5 billion in the same year?
The Leader of the Opposition was right for once when he said:
I do not for a moment suggest that I expect the Liberal members of this house to vote for the short amendment that I shall present.
It is true to say that we have to face serious national problems, but I want to express my complete disagreement with the mover of the amendment when he says that the advisers of Her Majesty lack leadership in facing such problems.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
A growing and progressive country like Canada is bound to be faced from time to time with problems of a serious and national nature. In fact some of these problems are mentioned in the speech from the throne and these, I might add, are not included in the revision of the two acts and the amendments to ten others which have caught the attention of the opposition. Canada is today playing a prominent role and contributing a substantial portion of its resources to the maintenance of armaments and the assurance of peace in the world.
In facing our national problems, it has been the aim of our government to maintain a Canadian unity; unity among our population from coast to coast, as well as unity in our economy. We from the maritime provinces, who for so long have been referred to as originating from what have been called "have-not" provinces, have always consented to any major policy which could contribute to the benefit and welfare of our great nation. We realize that to achieve and to maintain this economic unity and stability, the farmer in the prairie provinces as well as the labourer in Ontario and Quebec must be provided with earning facilities which are inherent in a healthy and sound national economy.
We realize that we have to face with broadminded views the problems confronting the wheat farmers in the west and the difficulties arising from the diversified industries of the central provinces. We disregard any parochial or sectional attitude which could paralyse or even delay the march of progress and development of this great nation, a democratic country where peace and freedom may reign forever. We support assistance to the wheat farmer, the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, and the participation of our government in the financing of the trans-Canada pipe line. We accept, although with some reluctance at times, the centralization of those numerous industries necessary to maintain our vast production program for defence purposes.
However, allow me to say that we from the maritimes-and this would apply more so to us from New Brunswick, and particularly to my constituency of Gloucester-have about reached what we could call a saturation point. The days have gone by when we wish to be called beggars or "have-not" provinces. We have at our front door the vast resources and the richness of the Atlantic ocean. We have in New Brunswick over 15 million acres of productive forests, further implemented by soil and climatic conditions excellent for natural reproduction. This can be a most valuable asset to a large percentage of our population provided, however,

The Address-Mr. Robichaud that our lumbermen are assured a lair deal and that lumber dealers are prepared to pay a reasonable and profitable price to those participating in this industry.
The recent discoveries of lead, zinc, copper and silver ore, chiefly in the northern and northeastern parts of the province, are most important to our economic future. In my own constituency of Gloucester, the town of Bathurst, the centre of this great development, whose population has increased by 48 per cent in the last 15 years, could easily be called upon to double its present population within the next three to five years. In fact it is in most urgent need of a public building to house the personnel of various government departments, and its citizens have warmly welcomed the recent announcement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) respecting the construction of a new structure at the earliest possible date.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Public Works will include in this year's estimates a sufficient appropriation to proceed without delay with the construction of this most urgently needed public building. At a later opportunity this session I intend to stress the urgency of proper improvements to shipping facilities for the port of Bathurst.
I have just said that we have in the maritime provinces vast natural resources of the sea and the soil which could assure our population their rightful participation in the general economy of the country. This participation in the welfare of the entire nation has been assured us by confederation. Unfortunately our geographical position, our limited population and our competitive transportation problems have had the ill effect of weakening the links of this union of provinces created by the Canadian confederation.
I do not want at this particular time to elaborate on the need of future developments in our fishing industry. I expect also to have the opportunity to discuss this vital question at a future date during this session. However, I must say that we are amazed to learn from reports originating from scientists of the fisheries research board that we have in our gulf of St. Lawrence waters one of the largest potential herring fisheries in the world, and to see that our Atlantic coast fishermen are still using the outmoded and obsolete methods of their forefathers to catch this particular type of fish. If we are to reap the harvest of the sea and maintain a flourishing industry, the federal Department of Fisheries must activate its research program without delay and at the same time make it more practical and accessible to the average fisherman.


We all realize that all power resources as; well as raw materials that can be taken from the soil are the property of the provinces. Our Prime Minister said, when addressing the federal-provincial conference last fall, and repeated in the house as found at page 49 of Hansard of January 12:
. . . we lelt that parliament should not provide lor sharing in the cost ol provincial projects except in special circumstances and as part ol a policy which we could justily on national grounds.
The discovery of large deposits of lead, zinc, copper and silver in the Bathurst-Newcastle area of New Brunswick, which has occurred in the last few years, can be considered as one of the most important events in the economic life of our province since confederation. Preliminary surveys have indicated that mining costs will be relatively low, and the deposits being within easy reach of water, shipping facilities are well situated from the standpoint of world markets. We know, however, and I must repeat, that the key to the future development of these mines is the provision of large supplies of relatively cheap electric power. When such an opportunity is offered to a section of the country which has been seriously and adversely affected by faith in the union of confederation, we of the maritime provinces must insist on the restoration of these differentials which could rectify the ill effects of the union.
The capital investment required to provide our potential industries with relatively cheap power is tremendous and, furthermore, we are deprived by nature of the numerous flows of water from the far north which are generating power so abundantly for industries of the central provinces. A project known as Beechwood is now under way on the Saint John river which will provide-I would have liked the hon. member who has just spoken to hear this-barely enough power to supply the normal requirements of an increasing growth in the demand for domestic consumption and small industries. The undertaking of an over-all program which would include the entire Saint John river system would involve the province of Quebec and the state of Maine.
The development of the hydroelectric power potential of an international river valley system, like the Saint John river in New Brunswick, presents problems of great complexity and beyond the financial capacity of a small province like New Brunswick. It is our belief that the development of such projects should be undertaken under the joint auspices of the provincial governments concerned and the federal government. Otherwise a province may have to alienate a portion of its resources to the United States in order to obtain the necessary funds for hydroelectric power

The Address-Mr. Robichaud
development. In such a case I cannot help but remind the house that there exists a policy of the federal government which affects in many ways, both directly and indirectly, the conservation and utilization of Canada's natural resources.
If we are to participate in the strengthening of the Canadian economy as a whole, if we are to benefit from this economic growth and are not to be regarded as a burden or a weak link in the Canadian confederation, we must insist that the federal government establish a policy to assist our province or other provinces in essential natural resource development. Is New Brunswick to become an exporter of its newly found raw materials for
the benefit of other countries, or are we in a position to assure the citizens of Canada that the possible new industries to be derived from these discoveries are not to settle beyond the borders of the province or the dominion?
Yes, if we want this assurance it is the duty of our governments to provide these mining companies with relatively cheap power, thus giving for the future that balanced economy so earnestly desired by our entire population.
On motion of Mr. Robichaud the debate was adjourned.


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


Tuesday, January 17, 1956