1956-01-19

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to deal with the proposal I made a week ago that there be a debate on external affairs which would give us an opportunity for a coherent discussion of that subject following a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). It seems to me that events which have occurred since that time emphasize the desirability of a debate shortly after the termination of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Righi Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that arrangements can be made for such a debate shortly after the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON REPORTED SHIPMENT OF AIRCRAFT TO EGYPT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs'. In view of the photograph handed to the press by the public relations officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force, showing a Harvard trainer carrying military weapons, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs amend the answer he gave to the effect that he did not believe that Harvard trainers could carry weapons, and amplify the remarks he made on the earlier occasion?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite ready to amend and amplify the answer which I gave on this point, and which was preceded by the cautionary observation that I was not a military expert. I said I did not believe this could be done. Apparently it can be done.


George Alexander Drew: Might I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence? If that is so, have any steps been taken to ensure that military weapons are not provided for the Harvard trainers being shipped to Egypt?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National
Defence): I shall be glad to get the information the Leader of the Opposition has asked for. I should like to say, in explanation of the statement on which he based his question, that I am informed that the pictures of the Harvard which were displayed in various newspapers were taken many years ago and they are in the offices of newspapers everywhere. The Harvard has for many years been regarded entirely as a trainer. It was never in fact in action, but was an armed trainer in use for some time years ago.
With regard to the question the Leader of the Opposition has asked, I shall obtain the answer for him.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance is back in Canada and the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is proceeding, would the Prime Minister reconsider his answer to the mayor and city council of Toronto who requested a conference on the matter of taxation on federal property in Toronto?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: would point out to the hon. member for St. Paul's that I saw the mayor and board of control of the city of 'Toronto last week and discussed this subject.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if his department has obtained a ruling from the Department of Justice as to whether it will be possible by regulation to
278	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry pay unemployment insurance benefits to persons denied those benefits under the new act provided they could have qualified under the old act?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The answer is that a ruling has not been received as yet. While I am on my feet, I can report at first hand to my hon. friend that in his own city of Winnipeg there are not a very large number so affected. I was glad to find in my week end visit there that under our new legislation some 25 per cent more were qualifying for seasonal benefits this winter, and I am quite sure it includes practically all those he has in mind.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I should like to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) on Tuesday last as to how many helicopters the Royal Canadian Navy possesses. The number is 22.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government reached any agreement with the starch producers in New Brunswick as to the proportion of the $1 per barrel of potatoes the government will pay? If so, what is the amount?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have made a proposal to the potato producers in New Brunswick to the effect that we would pay a certain amount on the potatoes that are utilized for starch provided they are potatoes that are in the commercial grades. I do not think that is the exAt term to use in connection with it. I think it would be better if I were to give the hon. member a copy of the proposal itself, which will give him full information with regard to the matter.
I am not certain that an agreement has yet been signed.


Gage Workman Montgomery: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister mentions commercial grades. I presume he is referring to Canada No. 1?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is correct.
[Mr. Knowles.)



WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether any field artillery weapons are being dismantled or have been dismantled and the parts sold separately by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation under circumstances which would make it possible for those parts to be sold outside Canada?
*Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I shall get more complete information. There is a full report being prepared of all orders that have been acquiesced in for anything that might be classified as a military weapon.


George Alexander Drew: Since the Prime Minister has indicated that an inquiry will be made, may I point out that my question was whether field artillery weapons had been dismantled and the parts sold separately. I would imagine they would then not have been sold as weapons, and I would hope that the Prime Minister, at the same time the inquiry is being made, will also make inquiries with respect to whether such parts, if they were sold, would require the ordinary permit that is required in the case of weapons being sold.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Was the statement made on the C.B.C. last night at ten o'clock that the deputy minister of immigration is trying to get recruits overseas by saying that in the very near future Canada will have health insurance a correct statement? If so, did the minister give the deputy minister authority to say that, and can the minister also tell us when we are going to have health insurance?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was more profitably occupied at ten o'clock last evening than the hon. member. Therefore I did not have the advantage of hearing the broadcast. I do not know what may have been said on the news broadcast; but I have sufficient confidence in the good sense, discretion and propriety of my deputy minister

to feel quite assured that he did not make any pronouncements about policy in any field that was not his own.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the answer I gave off the cuff yesterday to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Mr. Fleming:: This seems to be the day for corrections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said f understood that the provincial government of British Columbia had, as I believed, made a cash offer to the Indians of a particular reserve for certain land for the purpose of building the bridge to which the hon. member had reference. I am informed that the offer was not for land for the purpose of building the bridge but was for land for the highway leading up to the bridge, and that so far as the land for the bridge itself is concerned an application is under discussion at the present moment between officials of the public works department, I believe they call it, of British Columbia and the officials of my department looking to an application to the council of the band for this other land.
With respect to the shotguns, I am informed that certain employees of a contractor went on the reserve to look for a gravel pit without permission, that this was resented by the Indians and that they apparently did happen to have some shotguns, but I am told that no shots were fired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in view of the _ corrective statements made this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, may I ask if any other members of the government choose to follow their example and avail themselves of this opportunity to correct misleading statements they have made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman correct your statement that he is now the Leader of the Opposition?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I give you my earnest assurance that I did not hear you say that.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



REQUEST FOR REPEAT PERFORMANCE OF &quot;C.B.C. STAGE&quot; PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask the question put by the hon. member for Peterborough, but since that question has been asked may I direct one to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the number of requests which have been reaching me, will he ask the C.B.C. to consider a repeat performance of the very excellent program that was given on "C.B.C. Stage" on the night of January 1?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will convey the request to the officials of the C.B.C.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying at least to find that hon. members opposite can find some humour in the absurd position in which they are placed by contradictory statements that have been made. However, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has he either seen or had his attention drawn to a report in the Vancouver Province of January 14 that grain ships are lying idle in Vancouver harbour because they cannot get the grain that has been ordered to fill them?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the editorial, Mr. Speaker.


George Alexander Drew: It is not an editorial. It is a news report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not seen the news report. I am aware of the fact that certain ships are delayed, waiting for proper grades. The attention of the railways has been called to the situation, and more cars are constantly being diverted to that movement. The situation largely results from the fact that for some days the tracks in the west were closed through storms in Alberta and through washouts on the lines. The situation is being corrected as rapidly as possible, and by another week I think traffic will be moving normally out of that port.
280	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED CONFERENCE RESPECTING ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF FREIGHT CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it a fact that a conference is going on at the present time with the chairman of the wheat board in connection with the shortage of freight cars. Is it a fact that in part the reason for the accumulation of vacant shipping space in Vancouver and elsewhere is the large number of Canadian freight cars in the United States? What is being done to move those cars back into Canada for use in the transportation of available wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is true that we have a great many box cars in the United States. Whether or not the number is as normal I do not know. It is also true that the United States has a great number of flat cars in Canada. Whether or not that situation is as normal I do not know. However, the arrangements governing the return of cars on both sides is a matter of agreement between the railroads. In wartime, when a transport controller was appointed by the government in Washington, there was something the government could do about the matter. We have explored the situation and there seems to be nothing the government can do to assist the railroads in carrying out their arrangements. It is purely a matter for the railroads.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the authority of the transport controller? Where does he operate from, and what authority has he to assure that these cars are available, at least in fair proportion, to the operations of the grain trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend helped to pass the act governing the duties of the transport controller. If he will look at that act he will have more accurate knowledge of the duties and authority of the controller than I could give him.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand he has been on vacation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some people do take vacations; unfortunately, I am not one of that happy number. I think my hon. friend takes his share, from what I have been able to learn. The controller has been doing a very good job, and he has a very able staff that is carrying on in his absence. The office of transport controller is not a one-man show.



SALES TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would lay on the table of the house copies of the agreements for the export of surplus butter to certain countries. At that time he said that he would do so. When may we expect that tabling to be done?


James Garfield Gardiner: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not read too carefully the new regulations with regard to laying returns on the table as the result of what has been arranged recently, but I will see that those agreements, if any, are tabled. I was not aware that I was obliged to bring them here and put them on the table, but I will see that whatever is available is put on the table.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether any appeals for assistance have been made on behalf of the Indians who suffered severe losses in the November and December floods in British Columbia. If so, has he any statement to make as to what action we may expect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing of that sort has come to my personal attention, Mr. Speaker, although it is conceivable that something might have been dealt with in the ordinary way by the department.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the increased emphasis which the government is placing on housing redevelopment, can the minister tell the house what progress is being made in respect of housing redevelopment in the city of Montreal?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. After the city of Montreal approached the federal government, with the consent of the provincial

government as required by the legislation, a joint committee consisting of representatives of the city of Montreal and of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was established in the latter part of September of last year. This committee has been actively studying the many problems involved in a large redevelopment undertaking of this nature.
I am informed that the committee is now prepared to recommend on many of the details, including the boundaries of the area to be redeveloped. The official report of the joint committee is expected early in February. This report will be submitted in the form of a recommendation for the consideration of the city of Montreal and the federal government. So far as the federal government is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that the report will receive prompt attention.



REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SUPPLY PORTION OF HOUSING ACT FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. I have just been informed by the Clerk that it is now 9.45 and pursuant to the provisions of standing order No. 38, paragraph 3, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment.']
Robert Henry Winters: I understand that yesterday in my absence the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam asked the following question:
In view of yesterday's announcement by the banks indicating a decline in money being available for housing, would the government consider again supplying a portion of N.H.A. funds as it did before the first session of this parliament?
In reply, I should point out that I do not know of any general announcement by the banks regarding a decline in money available for housing. There has been no indication by prospective borrowers that there is a general shortage of mortgage money under the National Housing Act. As the hon. member knows, the act contains authority by which Central Mortgage may make loans directly to borrowers if loans are not being made available by approved lenders. If a shortage of mortgage money did occur it would be a matter of government policy, in light of the circumstances at that time, to determine to what extent the corporation's power to make direct loans should be used. At the present time this authority is being used in the smaller communities. It is the government's intention to ensure that a high level of house building continues.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 18, 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.
The Address-Mr. Hunter
Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: When the debate adjourned last night, Mr. Speaker, I had indicated that I intended to make some remarks on external affairs. However, before I go on with them I would call the attention of the house to the fact that another one of those very sad cases occurred last night in Toronto. A young girl of 13 was attacked and killed. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) together with the attorneys general of the provinces can work out some form of procedure to help control this type of thing.
In so far as my remarks on external affairs are concerned, I enter upon those with some timidity in view of the fact that there are experts on this subject in the house who know so much more about it than I do. However, I do want to make some remarks along this line. I suppose even a cat can look at a king.	*
While there are many troubled spots throughout the world, some of which could boil over at any time into either a local conflict or a major conflict, yet I think it must be conceded that the long-term and enduring problem is that of Russian communism. Many of these hot spots throughout the world are caused by communist propaganda and communist infiltration. Therefore the main problem, the long-term and enduring problem, boils down to the question of Russia and her purposes.
The extent of her conquests have been rather drastic since the war. As we all know, she has the Baltic states, with the exception of Finland. She has taken over Poland; she has retained the Ukraine; she has Eastern Germany, Rumania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. China and northern French IndoChina have followed her policy.
In addition, from a political point of view her adherents have made considerable political gains in many countries. We just have to face the fact that any portion of the world where there is social, economic or political injustice, is a likely spot for communist infiltration. The communists have no scruples; they can promise anything, whereas when we try to help we have to fulfil our promises. Therefore ours are restrained, carefully thought out, and inclined to be rather smaller than the communist promises. Accordingly it is a more difficult problem for us; the same as it is more difficult for a government in power than for an opposition, who can make extravagant promises.
The armed forces of the Russians are there not entirely for protection. Of course they state they are there for protection, but they are there for other purposes. They are there also for intimidation, and if a suitable occasion arose I suggest they would be there for

The Address-Mr. Hunter aggression. At the moment we hope they are there mainly for intimidation. But the trouble with that type of thing is that their armed forces bear no relationship to their economy, because their economy is in the complete control of the government, which, of course, is a totalitarian government. By taking complete control of the government and of the economy, and certainly brooking no opposition of any kind, they are in the position where they can gear their economy to an armed forces economy and a heavy industry economy; whereas in a democracy we have to keep things on a sounder basis and aim at genuine prosperity rather than an enforced economy.
I suppose that the thermonuclear weapons which are now possessed by the Russians may have an effect which is quite different from what people expect. Many people are frightened that there will be a world catastrophe, which could easily happen, but it might possibly have the other effect. If enough people realize the extreme danger, it may well be that instead of a thermonuclear war we will have peace, or in the alternative we might have more or less a stalemate in nuclear weapons and have the traditional type of war break out in which thermonuclear weapons would not be used. That is a strong possibility. If Russia attacked, obviously thermonuclear weapons would be used; but if a war started in a small way and slowly kindled into a major conflict we could easily have a war using traditional weapons only and not thermonuclear weapons.
Since Russia is a totalitarian state, they need not consult the wishes of their people, and do not. I do not think we quite appreciate how strong that makes them, in the sense that they can gear their whole economy to whatever particular phase of activity they wish to engage in at that time. Also, the people have no say in what the government does. If they venture a contrary opinion they are sent to labour camps. They are subject to excessive propaganda, really, of an active and inactive kind. Since they are subject to excessive propaganda from birth they are not in a position to even think clearly or from a detached or impartial point of view. They have no knowledge except what is imparted to them through government propaganda.
In addition there is a great inactive type of propaganda to which they are subject. They do not allow the people to move. They are not permitted to leave the country; they are not permitted to get education by travel, and accordingly they are not in a position to judge the propaganda that is incessantly


poured out to them in Russia, or at least partially counter it by seeing what is actually happening abroad.
As long as the Russians keep their people within the confines of their iron curtain it is quite obvious that they will not be in a position to gather any real knowledge of what happens outside. We may laugh at their propaganda and say it is incredible, but if you have heard nothing else, if it is continuous and persistent it is easy to understand that people may become adjusted to it and have complete faith in it. I am quite confident that the people of the satellite countries may not believe that propaganda because they have known better, but when two generations of Russian people have been brought up under that system it is easy to understand that they would believe in it and be willing to fight for it.
I believe it would be ridiculous to think that at any time we could have a revolution in Russia, barring the development of internal changes over a period of time. The present system is bound to last for a considerable length of time, subject to the outbreak of war which might destroy it. It must be remembered that this is not a moral government, it is an unmoral government. They are guided by what they wish to achieve, not by any moral principles. As long as they work on that basis no government should be naive enough to believe in their word or to believe in any signed agreement entered into by them, because they will keep it only as long as it suits their purpose.
It would be most unwise to expect a revolution in Russia and the establishment of a democratic government. That might happen under certain circumstances in the satellite countries, but certainly not in Russia proper at the present time. The people there have never known democracy. Russia is the largest police state in the world. The days when the peasants might gather up their scythes and go out and murder the aristocrats are over. Today a revolution requires scientific and modern weapons and well-trained men to handle them, and nothing in Russia would ever be permitted to reach that stage.
I think it is quite clear that there has been no change in the purpose of the Russians. Last year many people had hopes that after the death of Stalin the government there might become somewhat softer in its outlook, might be inclined to be more friendly toward the democratic nations, might be more inclined to indicate that they thought they could live side by side. I do not think the original purpose of the Russians has ever been lost. At the present time the Russians

The Address-Mr. Hunter
have no intention of giving up their eventual plans for world conquest and the establishment of world communism.
In view of that fact it is quite obvious that this will be a long drawn out proposition. Our first duty and obligation is to maintain our allegiance to the United Nations and to NATO, of which our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might be considered the father. While they are both equally important, I think it is most vital that we continue our adherence to NATO which is actually giving us the physical strength to resist if something does happen. Of course this involves the continuation of large armed forces, and I think for many years we must look forward to spending a large proportion of the money collected from the public on our armed forces. However, I think that will prove to be a cheap form of insurance in the long run.
Another thing we are going to have to do is guard our economy. I think it is most vital in any democratic country which desires to maintain itself against communism that the economy be watched most closely. We must remain prosperous; we must retain high employment, because everyone knows that part of the communist propaganda is directed at unemployment, bread lines and things of that kind. The hope of communist countries is that the democracies will have a breakdown in their economies. Accordingly that is something that will have to be watched very carefully. Fortunately it has been watched very carefully, and the present government will continue to watch it and prevent anything like the depression which was predicted last year by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew).
I think one thing we will have to recognize eventually is the importance of education, which is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. We will have to realize the importance of giving what assistance we can. What form this assistance may take is something I will gladly leave to the judgment of our Prime Minister, but what I am getting at is this. Any country which hopes to compete with communism and keep up its scientific reputation and its rate of scientific advancement must have able instructors in its universities. It is only by having able instructors in our universities that we will be able to turn out trained scientists who will keep us abreast or ahead of the scientific competition which has been entered into between Russian communism and the democracies. Something must be done in this connection, particularly in keeping up the scientific progress of our country.
Of course we have done great things along these lines with our atomic energy plant at
Chalk River and our other research work, and I think the federal government has gone far beyond what many governments have done. We will certainly have to keep our eyes on this in order that we may not only keep abreast of scientific development but ahead of it if possible.
We must continue what we have been doing in helping less fortunate nations under the Colombo plan. We have made considerable contributions under this plan, and this year we are increasing them. It may be that eventually we will have to increase them again. If we are going to avoid trouble spots in the world we should try to help less fortunate countries. After all, we are not the biggest country in the world, but we should try to help cure the economic, social and political ills of these trouble spots. We will have to spend money to do it, and it will take a great deal of patience and a great deal of tact.
I suppose one of the reasons the democracies are so powerful is the fact that they are governments of the people, but I think it is also quite clear that democracy in competition with communism, with the totalitarian government, has certain apparent weaknesses. In the long run I do not think they are weaknesses, I think they are evidence of strength; but we must face the fact that the communists have complete control over their people and can compel them to do anything whether they like it or not.
We do not believe in that sort of thing; we believe that the people must be convinced as to what we are doing. That is the strength of a democracy. But in the case of short-term urgency it could be a weakness, because a democracy cannot act as rapidly as a totalitarian state. What it boils down to is that as a long-term proposition we will have to continue to keep eternal vigilance and never relax.
I was astonished to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the speech from the throne contained little but easy assurances and uninformative platitudes. I do not know exactly what the Leader of the Opposition was looking for, but if he was looking for a side show or something fascinating, then he came to the wrong place. The speech from the throne is an indication of government policy. It has to do with the serious business of governing the country, and for somebody to look for excitement or something of that kind in the speech from the throne is absolutely absurd. As I say, it is serious business.
The government was not in a position to say anything in the speech from the throne regarding the important matter of health
284	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. M. Howe insurance but there may be something later on because, as you all know, the Prime Minister has called a conference with the provinces to consider that particular phase of social security. To say that either we are doing nothing, or that there is a failure to disclose these things, is to my mind a most unfair statement; but I suppose it was not unexpected.
I shall close simply by saying that I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will forgive my temerity in entering into a discussion of external affairs, and I trust that what 1 have said has not been so bad that 1 shall be disowned immediately.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the congratulations offered by other hon. members to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
My initial address in this house, of considerable length, described my own riding and mentioned the necessity of some way of decentralizing industry. Many reasons for such decentralization can be seen by those who live in smaller communities. The fact that many people are crowding into large urban municipalities makes them very vulnerable to complete annihilation in this day and age of atomic warfare.
Decentralization would help many phases of our economy. For instance, if our population were more diversified and spread out, the carrying of freight throughout the country would bring additional revenue to our railroads. So I could go on. There are many reasons for this. However, as others have mentioned and I myself have mentioned, industry is moving out into the smaller communities to a considerable extent. Several industries have settled in my riding during the past few years.
In this connection I should like to congratulate all our local municipal councils and associated boards, such as the school boards and hospital boards, on the wonderful job they are doing to keep those communities attractive for industries that may be looking for good industrial sites. In the last year it has been interesting to note the increase in hospital facilities that has taken place in that particular part of the country from which I come. In one centre, that of Fergus, a new hospital was built with 56 beds at a cost of $541,000. The general hospital at Palmerston had an addition and was remodelled at a cost of $138,000. The Wing-ham hospital had an addition estimated to cost $610,000. The Louise Marshall hospital at Mount Forest had an addition at a cost of $112,064. As I have said, all this is an


indication that those communities are doing their best to look after the services and facilities so necessary in our smaller communities.
All this work, as all hon. members know, is done with the co-operation of provincial and federal governments, but I maintain that the initiative and the main part of the cost is borne by those municipalities themselves and neighbouring municipalities interested in those particular centres. In that connection, in my own riding alone well over a million dollars has been spent on hospital facilities in the last year. In the past few years well over a million dollars has also been spent on public and high school facilities.
I hope other hon. members in this house will join me in urging the Minister of Finance once again to give consideration to the necessity for dropping the sales tax on purchases by municipal councils and associated boards. The land and property taxes, are increasing and are a very heavy burden on the property and land owners in the small communities as well as in the large communities, but they are necessitated by the provision of modern and adequate facilities for these people.
Now I should like to turn to another phase of the economy. We are all interested in our own ridings, but this is one of the fundamental problems of agriculture throughout the country. The counties of Wellington and Huron do their share in providing agricultural products for this country's economy; in particular they are among the leaders in the production of oats, mixed grains, flax, butter, cattle, beef and many other associated products.
I was rather interested in a statement made by Dr. E. G. Pleva, professor of economic geography at the University of Western Ontario. This statement will bring to the attention of this house the importance of agriculture in that part of the dominion called the lowlands of the St. Lawrence. That district, which comprises 1 per cent of the land area of Canada, contains about two-thirds of the population and three-quarters of the industrial development, and receives-this fact was very interesting to me-one-half of the agricultural crop dollars. One can see why we who represent ridings in that district want to add our voices to the voices of those who are bringing to the attention of this house the condition of agriculture throughout our dominion.
Since coming to this house it has been rather interesting to see how much is said for the western farmer. Certainly he is an important and integral part of the economy of

this great dominion and is having his problems. We have surpluses. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in a speech the other day, seemed to welcome these surpluses. The Minister of Agriculture, using a Biblical term which he has quoted many times in this house, about the seven good years and seven bad years, indicated they were a good thing. However, I feel that with the recent trend of improved methods in all phases of agriculture, increased production is going to continue; it is not going to be the exception. Unless we have some major national setback, which does not happen very often, conditions of increased crop production are going to continue.
In that connection I should like to mention the recent speech by the hon. member for Parkdale, in which he mentioned the necessity for increased research. I would say that every medium possible should be used in order that research in agriculture may be continued and fostered, and so that costs of production may be reduced, the quality of products improved and our agricultural products made able to compete in the markets of the world as regards price and quality.
As I have said, the western farmer has been spoken of a good deal in this house since I have been here, and no doubt a good many times before that. But what was predicted a few years ago by many farming organizations in this country has happened. The effective surplus in the west has had a bad effect on agriculture throughout the whole economy. Farming prices have fallen to such an extent that the farmer is having a very difficult problem.
In connection with the farmers of southern Ontario, a report of the Searle Grain Company of Wednesday, January 11, gives a very definite reason for our problems down here. Under the heading, "The Underlying Reason for Concern" the report has this to say:
Without entering into the debatable question whether the western farmers should or should not be encouraged to raise more livestock at this time we do feel that the suggestion is of great interest, not only because it reflects the concern felt by eastern producers about the trend in this particular branch of the agricultural industry, but also because it brings out clearly the chain of reaction and the difficulties that can follow when the natural order of events and the natural flow of marketing is disturbed. The actual background which provoked this suggestion from Ontario stems largely from the distress selling of quantities of grain in parts of western Canada, and particularly in Alberta, at prices far below the regular Canadian wheat board prices. These sales, conducted along legal lines, entirely outside board operations, were from farm to farm as well as to feeders of poultry and other livestock and they are indicative of the desire of the farmers concerned to find an outlet for their grain to provide ready cash at a time when restrictive quotas are in effect. It is the competition of the feeders who enjoy cheap feed resulting
The Address-Mr. W. M. Howe
from this distress selling of grain that is most feared by the eastern livestock group.
To bear that out, I have a recent hog producers' survey conducted by my own Wellington county federation of agriculture, which would indicate that 27-6 per cent more hogs were raised in western Canada in 1955 than in 1954. In eastern Canada the figure is down by 11-6 per cent, which is an indication that what was predicted would happen has taken place. The Minister of Agriculture suggested to the western farmers that they diversify their production, and that their only solution was to raise more livestock.
Throughout the world today we are coming closer together from an economic point of view, so what happens in one part of the world affects every other part. The same is true of our dominion. The fact that the western farmer has of necessity had to become a general farmer has affected the farmers of southern Ontario. What has happened? In a recent address Professor Mac-Dougall, professor of economic agriculture at the Ontario Agricultural College, advised that some of the younger men who are farming should leave the farms, that they would be happier in the cities. Many of these young farmers are boys who went overseas and fought for us in the last war. When they came home they used their war benefit's and gratuities to do what they had fought for and felt they had the right to do. They used them to become farmers, to carry on the occupation they had chosen in this supposedly free world, to live in the way they wanted to live. Now they are faced with the inability of the government to sell the products of the farmers on the markets of the world.
I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said about the operations of the income tax department as they affect farmers. It has been brought to my attention that income tax collectors go about the country and drop in quietly and unobtrusively on farmers who have been paying their income tax to the best of their ability. They sit down with them and ask them about their living costs. They ask them how much they have spent on meat, vegetables, clothing and so on, and the prices are all taken at the retail level.
The farmer unknowingly goes along with the income tax official, and when the official is all through he asks the farmer to sign a paper. Then the income tax inspector goes away and shortly afterwards an amount is added to the income the farmer has already declared. He receives a new assessment which is away out of line from the point of view of what he should pay by way of income tax.
286	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. W. M. Howe
Instances have also been brought to my attention respecting applications by farmers to the farm loan board. Regardless of whether the farmer has assets to cover the loan he requires, if he owes money to the bank or to an implement agency or somebody else in his district he is refused a loan. He is told that if he will pay off the bank and pay off the amount he owes the implement agency he will then be given a loan. How is he going to do that? He has to sell his stock in trade, his cattle and hogs, and practically go out of business. The farm loan board is no use to him. They do not help him to put his eggs all in one basket, consolidate his loans and give him a longer time to pay, thus permitting him to stay in business by maintaining his agricultural establishment. Then the farmer could carry on, but in so many cases he has been refused a loan. I notice that legislation is to be introduced respecting the Canadian farm loan board and I hope some consideration will be given to extending a little leniency to so many of these people that need help so badly.
There is only one other thing I should like to mention. It has to do with the statement of Professor MacDougall to which I referred before. He apparently believes that our small farms will disappear and that we will become a country of great farms. I say the same thing is happening in the case of the small retail merchant. Today with the increased number of great shopping centres and the spreading out of big retail buying organizations, the small retail merchant is being caught in the squeeze. The day when he lived in his own small community and catered to the needs and necessities of the people there is disappearing. With improved means of transportation he is caught in the squeeze. He not only has to compete with merchants in his own town but has to compete with big buying organizations who get special discounts.
I speak for the small automobile retailer as well as the ordinary retailer in our different communities. How is the small car dealer going to compete with the great sales agencies in the cities who get special discounts because of the number of cars they sell? I believe it is not a good indication for our economy to be heading in this direction.
I believe that the small property owner, the farmer and the retailer, who have been the backbone of the country, who have been ready to take their places on municipal councils and various municipal boards; these people who have been big taxpayers in our small communities, who have provided the streets, hospitals, schools and all the other facilities 

that are so necessary, still have a definite place in our economy and should be protected.
There is just one other thing I want to say. The fact has been mentioned in the house before that our farmers could and would produce more on the farms if the bugbear of surpluses was removed. They feel now that if they increase their production their products will come on the market at a time when prices are depressed. In connection with the butter surplus, which was mentioned the other day, I sometimes feel that we might deal with it in the same way we dealt with the pork surplus a few years ago. The butter has been bought and paid for by the people of Canada. The farmers do not like the opposition of margarine. If this No. 1 storage butter were thrown on the market at prices comparable with those at which it is being sold to communist countries, I feel that such action would be a good advertising medium for the butter producers of this country, that it would get butter into homes that have not used it for years, and that the people of Canada would benefit thereby.


Mr. W. A. Pommer (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate may I briefly add my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the exceedingly able manner in which they discharged their duties. The hon. member for Timiskaming set a precedent by becoming the first woman in our history to move the traditional address in reply to the speech from the throne with which His Excellency the Governor General opens our sessions of parliament.
The hon. member was pleased to say that in selecting her the Prime Minister had in mind the honouring of all the women of Canada in public and in private life. I have no doubt that was one of the things the Prime Minister had in mind. But after listening to the competent and informed speech which she made, and witnessing the manner in which she discussed some of the problems confronting the people of her constituency, our country as a whole and the great alliance of free nations with which we are associated,
I am convinced that the Prime Minister had more in mind. I am sure he felt as I do, that it was not only an honour due to the hon. member as a representative of the women of Canada, but was in recognition of her own abilities, her own performance in this house and in the administration of the municipal affairs of the township of Teck of which she was reeve for so many years.
The seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), has been recently elected to the house and was making

his first speech. We are sure that the people of Bellechasse have an able representative in this house, and I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I am sure it augurs well for his future parliamentary career in the House of Commons.
I should just like to say a few words about the constituency I represent. The constituency of Lisgar is one of the historical political subdivisions in Canada. It was first known as Selkirk. The boundaries have been somewhat changed over the years, but it has been electing members to this house since the time of the entry of Manitoba into confederation. The first member was one of the great builders of Canada, namely Mr. Donald Smith, later known as Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. The constituency covers an area of about five thousand square miles and has a population of about 49,000 people. I am proud to say that in enterprise, culture, respect for the laws of God and of the nation, and friendliness and kindliness, the people of Lisgar take second place to no other people in Canada or indeed in the world. I speak from 35 years of experience when I say that. I have seen them face bad times with fortitude and good times with humility and moderation.
Unlike many other constituencies in Canada, especially in the west, the whole area of Lisgar is fertile and populated. It is primarily a farming area. Serving the people and providing centres for social and business activity are some 60 towns and villages. Mixed farming is general throughout the area, but we produce plenty of good wheat and many other things as well. Some of the best purebred livestock will be found on the farms in Lisgar.
In the southern and eastern parts of the constituency row crops such as sugar beets, corn, peas, beans and tomatoes are successfully grown. Sunflowers do well and have been a good source of income for many farmers in recent years. Last year, for the first time in Manitoba, locally-grown tomatoes were canned. They were grown in the Morden, Winkler and Plum Coulee areas and were processed by the Aylmer plant at Morden.
I mention the range and variety of our farm output by way of notice to the Minister of Agriculture that our people are interested in the whole range of policies followed by his department. The minister, however, knows western Canada better than do most other men, and probably needs no notice. Perhaps I should direct these remarks to the Leader of the Opposition and to the other
The Address-Mr. Pommer party leaders who aspire to office. Their agricultural policies must be sound, practical and well balanced if they are to appeal to the people of my constituency.
Along with the hon. member who moved the address in reply I was privileged to attend the first interparliamentary conference of the NATO countries at Paris last July.
I agree with everything she said about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its importance to the preservation of freedom in the world. It is tragic that, so soon after a terrible war, nations should be obliged to band together in order to prevent another conflict by means of a show of force. Yet it would be more than tragic, it would be stupid if we were to ignore the facts and leave the way open to an aggressor to subdue us one by one.
I was impressed by what I saw and heard at NATO headquarters in Paris and on our visits to the Canadian forces serving in Europe. I was particularly impressed with the achievements of NATO and with Canada's role in those achievements. We can be proud of that role; but I wish more Canadians knew more about the challenge which the communist dictatorship presents to us and about the necessity of maintaining, enlarging and improving our common defence effort so long as that challenge exists.
It has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and by others as well, that ignorance is one of the great obstacles in the way of enduring peace. We know that the ignorance of the free world which exists in the minds of the Russian people is deliberately fostered by the communist government. We also know that some of the ignorance which exists in our own country and in other free countries about the Russian people, their conditions of life, their achievements and their opinions is due to the iron curtain which the communists have placed in the way of the exchange of information between the citizens of Russia on the one hand and those of the free countries on the other.
Between the countries of NATO, however, there are no artificial barriers to the exchange of information. We members of parliament who were privileged to take part in that assembly owe it to our country, and to the common cause of freedom, to tell the story of NATO. None of us could tell it better than did the hon. member for Timiskaming.
I was intrigued by a few of the things the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said last week. He seemed to belittle the references to the general prosperity of our country which are contained in the speech from the throne. He said they reminded him of what was being said in

The Address-Mr. Pommer 1929 on the eve of the great depression. I have heard this line of talk from opposition speakers before, from the socialists as well as the Conservatives. Never since our government came into power in Canada, according to them, have we ceased to be on the eve of a depression. No matter how prosperous in fact we have continued to be, their endlessly repeated refrain has been that this is not true prosperity; it is merely a Liberal prosperity. We seem to be prosperous, but it cannot last. Things are bound to get worse. We are surprised they are not worse already. The government is not doing the right thing and this false prosperity is a deceptive accident.
Then when things slow down just a little they scream that the depression has arrived, and call upon us to take desperate remedies which they have thought up to meet the depression for which they have been hoping. Ever since the last traces of the great depression were wiped out in the second world war and a wave of expansion followed it, the socialists and Conservatives have been predicting blue ruin. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is one of the chief architects of the economic policies which have brought a long succession of prosperous years. He has been ridiculed as an optimist, but his optimistic predictions have been more than justified by subsequent events.
Just a year ago we had more unemployment in this country than most of us like to see. Week after week we listened to the opposition labouring, almost gloating, over that fact. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us the situation would soon improve. The government took certain measures to see that it did improve. We were told the measures were inadequate, that various emergency steps should be taken. Within a few months the situation did improve. We have heard little about unemployment in the debate so far this session.
What do we hear about? We hear about the wheat crisis. We hear that it is going to be a lot worse. We are told drastic steps must be taken. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I do not know long prosperity is going to continue. I will not be surprised if we have a few ups and downs. Right now I should like to see our farmers selling more wheat and getting more cash for it, but I do not believe western Canada is going to the dogs as fast as the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. would have us believe. Western Canada was built on faith and optimism. It was not built by men who always expected the worst. If everybody believed all the stories we hear from the opposition about calamities, both present and to come, no one


would put another dollar into this country. Yet we find that capital investment last year was higher than ever before.
Not long ago Douglas Gibson of the Bank of Nova Scotia, one of our recognized authorities on economics, was quoted in the Financial Post as saying that the underlying trend in Canada is decidedly upward. I agree with him. I do not think any of the prophets of gloom have much in the way of a real basis for their predictions. The other day the C.C.F. leader said this government was bankrupt of ideas. I say that any party which pins its hope of beating this government on prophesying a depression is rather bankrupt in political ideas.
A year ago these gentlemen were talking about unemployment. There was unemployment. They said the government was to blame and that the government could stop unemployment if it would only do the things they wanted done, such as putting a lot of people to work building things to be paid for by the taxpayers. Had all the things they suggested been done there would not have been enough people to produce the goods which went to swell our gross national product in 1955 to a record figure in excess of $26 billion. Now they have changed their tune. They do not talk about unemployment; they talk about the wheat surplus. There is a big wheat surplus. I do not say it will disappear as quickly as last year's unemployment problem, but we may be surprised.
What has happened in the past year to make the blue ruin boys talk about wheat this session? It has been nothing but a good crop, 494 million bushels and most of it of high grade. This makes five bumper crops in the last six years. Is that bad? I do not think it is as bad as our critics make out. Things could have been a lot worse if we had not had the wheat board system of marketing, which guarantees a fair price and enables every farmer to move a proportion of his crop when elevator storage is limited.
During those six years the farmers have marketed more wheat than in any other period in their history. They have received cash for it. They still have a lot left on their farms, but I can remember times when they were a lot worse off. I can remember when they did not have good crops, when many had no crops at all, and when those who had crops received very little cash for what they sold. We had a Conservative government in those days, and I daresay they did the best they could but I do not recall any miracles.
This government perfected the wheat board system of marketing. It has taken the lead in getting co-operation among the

leading wheat exporting and importing nations in stabilizing wheat prices. The speech from the throne tells us about two other things that are to be done, one temporary and one permanent, to improve our wheat marketing system. There are to be guaranteed bank loans for the farmer with wheat on his farm who is short of cash. Our friends say that idea is no good. They say there should be unlimited advances from the wheat board through the elevator agents against wheat stored on the farms.
I wish it could be done that way, but the wheat board takes the position that it was not set up, nor is it organized, to do that kind of business. It is quite clear the wheat board is right. It certainly was not organized to lend money. It was organized to sell wheat, and has its hands full at the present time selling wheat. The board has no staff experienced in money lending, and would have to cast around for persons whom it could employ who are experienced and at the moment unemployed. It is rather strange that those who profess to be such supporters of the wheat board should, at a critical period in its existence, wish upon it overnight a new and invidious responsibility. I know that if the wheat board did undertake that job and made a few mistakes, we would soon hear about it from those whose chief aim in life is to discredit and destroy the wheat board.
No member from the western plains need offer any apology for discussing wheat on the floor of this house. Right now we are confronted with problems of storage and the financing of storage. They are important, but they should not be confused with the troubles we have had in the past, problems of short crops and hence lack of cash income, or problems of price. We have had good crops; we have had a steady flow of wheat to the markets, and we have had a reasonably stable price structure.
For the good crops we can thank divine Providence. For the stable price structure we can thank the marketing system which this government has developed with the support of our farm organizations, and which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture have stoutly defended. They have defended it against the attacks of the advocates of an open market, whose system would have meant disastrously low prices at this time. They have defended against the advocates of socialism, whose system would have put the western farmer in bondage to the state.
For many years our farmers hoped for a system of orderly marketing. Now they have it. What has it meant? Well, let me give you a few figures. For the ten-year period from 67509-19
The Address-Mr. Pommer 1940 to 1950 the average annual wheat crop in all Canada was 391 million bushels. The average annual exports were 275 million bushels. There was no surplus. In the last six years, with five bumper crops and only one poor crop, the average annual production was 522 million bushels. The average annual export was 286 million bushels.
To those who say there is something wrong with our foreign markets, the answer is in the fact that exports in recent years have been above the ten-year average. We have had above normal crops. In that situation, I submit that orderly marketing does not mean selling all that is produced right away. The selling of it all could mean disastrously low prices for the farmer, which is what happened in similar circumstances in the old days of the open market. It could mean subsidized export or dumping, which would cost the taxpayers of all Canada millions of dollars. I submit that it makes sense to follow the policy of orderly marketing which has meant much to the western farmer, and that it makes sense to ask the taxpayer to pay part of the cost of storage. I submit that subsidized dumping on a grand scale at the expense of the taxpayer could only bring demands that the western farmer curtail his production, to his long-term disadvantage.
I welcome the proposed measure to provide for payment of carrying charges on abnormal wheat carryovers. It will put more cash in the hands of the wheat grower this year when he needs it badly. It is one more step in reducing the risks attendant on wheat growing to something like the risks that pertain to other businesses in this country. It is not a special benefit to the wheat grower at the expense of the whole country. It will prove a long-range stabilizing influence on our whole economy. Every sector of the economy benefits when the western farmer sells his wheat at a fair price.
The western farmer has been blessed with a succession of bumper crops. He has been selling enough on export markets and otherwise to dispose of normal crops. It is clearly in the national interest that the excess be stored against the time when demand may increase or we may have a short crop. The cost of that storage should not all fall on the farmer. So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the loan plan as a sincere attempt to make money available to the small wheat farmer during this time of slow marketing. I hail the plan for payment of storage as an important constructive move which belies any suggestion that this government is bankrupt of ideas. I deplore blue ruin talk which pictures a good crop as a disaster.

The Address-Mr. Castleden
There are other announcements in the speech from the throne of special interest to my constituency. The Industrial Development Bank Act is to be amended. I hope the amendments will permit the bank to advance capital for the establishment of seed cleaning plants. The inability of the bank to assist an industry of this kind came to my attention in connection with a proposed plant at Pilot Mound. I wrote to the Minister of Finance, and received his assurance the matter would be taken up.
The proposed amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act will make those important measures of greater use to the farmers. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been a benefit to many farmers in the west in cases of crop failure. I am glad to note that amendments are proposed, but will wait for the introduction of legislation to present certain views in detail. Briefly, I believe the act should make it somewhat easier for Manitoba farmers to qualify for assistance than it has been up to now. Since the establishment of the scheme, Manitoba farmers have paid in $4,500,000 more than they have drawn out in crop failure benefits. This is in comparison with Saskatchewan and Alberta, who have taken out $90 million more than was paid in by the producers.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the future with confidence. Never has the outlook for Canada been brighter. We have problems in Canada, but they are small compared with those of other countries. They are problems associated with growth and expansion. They pale into insignificance in comparison with the larger problems of the world, the problem of avoiding war, the problem of bringing a better standard of living to the overcrowded and economically undeveloped areas. As a Canadian I am proud of the part our country is playing in building the defences of the free world through NATO. I am proud of our contributions to what I regard as the equally important and more enduring additions to the structure of peace through the United Nations, the Colombo plan and other agencies of economic co-operation.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just preceded me is something like the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who tries to tell this house that the opposition considers a big wheat crop is a calamity. Such a statement is very far from the truth. We consider abundant crops to be of great benefit to the people of this country and they should be of great benefit to the world. But when we see a recession in the areas where the people produce those crops; when we see the rest of Canada enjoy-
[Mr. Pommer.l

ing great prosperity while the people engaged in agriculture on the prairies are suffering recession caused by increasing costs and inability to deliver their grain or sell it because of the maladministration of this government, we say the calamity is the government.
I might say that the hon. member who preceded me does not read nearly as well as the minister does in presenting his case. The hon. member also referred to the fact that Canada is enjoying unprecedented investment in industry. We are enjoying an unprecedented peacetime boom because of terrific government expenditures in defence and defence contracts, and also tremendous investments coming from the great giant that lives to the south of us on this continent, the United States.
On other occasions I have referred to the danger facing Canada because we are living on the same continent with this very wealthy nation of 160 million people. I have referred to the danger that faces this small country because that great country to the south, with all its wealth, can move in here and buy into and absorb Canadian industry through their subsidiary companies in this country and gradually obtain control, economically, of our natural wealth and the industrial life of our nation.


Mr. Trainor:: Where would you get it elsewhere?


George Hugh Castleden: Why should Canada not be doing this? Why should not Canada be developing her own natural resources? Why should United States firms be doing that? Why does not this government have a fiscal policy which will provide money for investment in these developments, and thus keep these things for Canada?
During his speech the other night the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar put some excellent figures on the record to indicate the way United States industry was infiltrating into Canada to such a degree as to give concern to many Canadians. I have here another example which may be of interest to the people of Canada. I should like to quote from an article by the financial editor which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 6:
In Canada three names dominate the soap industry-Lever Brothers, Colgate-Palmolive and Procter and Gamble. From these three giant firms come the three most widely known and used soaps-Lux, Palmolive and Ivory, and there are few readers whose homes will not contain at least some of the products of these companies.
Yet not one of these companies is Canadian, none of them sell shares in the Canadian end of their operations, and not one of them even lists the parent company stock on Canadian exchanges.

They have certainly made the Canadian people soap conscious.
Procter and Gamble, whose headquarters are in Cincinnati, Ohio, has been operating a branch plant in Canada since 1913-43 years. Since the beginning of this operation, the firm that makes soap that is 99 4tioo pure has kept its subsidiary 100 per cent pure, as far as outside ownership is concerned.
And since this is the case surely the time has come for these huge soap firms to share the made in Canada profits with Canada's soap-conscious citizens.
Another article on January 3 referred to a possible change in the control of Algoma Steel following the death of Sir James Dunn. It was indicated that there was a possibility that Bethlehem, the great steel combine in the United States, was interested in purchasing a controlling interest in Algoma, but this will be known only after the will has been disposed of. Take our iron ore deposits, our power, our pulp-[DOT]


Mr. Garson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Hugh Castleden: I am sorry, I have not the time. I think every Canadian should be made aware of the rapid increase in United States control of Canadian industry. The ultimate result of this will be political control, and the citizens of Canada should be kept constantly aware of that development. Many people are viewing it with deep concern, and Canadians should know about it.
In connection with the plight of the agricultural producer on the western prairies and this trend which is taking place in industry in Canada, this government deserves censure by the opposition. It is the duty of the opposition to censure the government, and I think that censure is to be found in the amendment now before the house which reads:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in the face of serious national problems, including their failure to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain, equal to not less than 75 per cent of the initial price, to alleviate the serious financial crisis now confronting western farmers and the entire economy of the prairie provinces, and their disregard of the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence of this house.
The part of the amendment referring to the failure to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain of not less than 75 per cent of the initial payment is a real fact. I am pleased to support that amendment as representing the opinion of people whom I represent in this house. For three years now the situation has been getting steadily worse, and we in the opposition have pointed out that a continuation of present policies, with the costs of operating a farm constantly increas-67509-19J
The Address-Mr. Castleden ing, as well as the costs of operating all other businesses in Canada in the face of less returns is something that is causing great concern to those people who operate these businesses. Surely it is elementary that unless those who are operating businesses and farms receive an increased return as a result of their operations they must face bankruptcy.
All kinds of reasons are being presented for the increasing costs of operation of these enterprises. When this government took off price controls in 1947 and 1948 we saw the beginning of a spiral. We in this party stressed the danger of the policy the government was adopting at that time, but we were told that while there might be a slight rise in the cost of living, it would only be for a year or two and then the law of supply and demand would operate and things would level off. But the fact is that since that time the cost of manufacturing and the cost of living everywhere in Canada has increased.


An hon. Member:: Not every year.


George Hugh Castleden: In what year did they go down? Just take a look at the record. Consider the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, which show that the things the farmer purchases now stand at 241 as compared with 100 in the base period 1935-39. The return to the farmer should also be up by that same amount if he is to escape bankruptcy.
The blame for the increasing costs of operation lies with the federal government. It has been said that it is up to the provincial governments and the rural municipalities, but when the farmer cannot balance his budget then these other organizations cannot balance theirs. The cost of operating a rural municipality is up. It costs two or three times as much to purchase machinery as it did in those early days; labour costs, the cost of materials of all kinds and of everything along the line are up.
The small western merchant is in the same position. The Canadian economy must be constantly expanding if it is to keep up to the increasing cost of operating. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us the other day that we have nearly as much in the way of grain deliveries as we had in another five-year period, but the minister did not take into account the cost of operation. The farmer must have more for what he produces; he must receive more for his toil. Instead of his returns increasing, they have been steadily declining.
This decline is not just in connection with grain. The minister carefully avoided talking about the decrease in the return the farmer gets for other products. If your cost

The Address-Mr. Castleden of operating goes up and your return steadily declines, you reach the point where your return is less than your cost of operation; and if anybody in this house can tell me that you can continue along that road and not go into bankruptcy I should like to have him stand up and show how it can be done. That is exactly the position in which the farmer is today.
When the farmer is ever faced with some of those other risks which confront him from time to time, such as frost, rust or flood conditions, things are calamitous for him. For 1956 at least, his costs will be even greater. I suggest that in considering this problem we should look to the government as being responsible for these increasing costs. If they place the farmer in the position where he is not getting a sufficient return for his production, then they must accept the blame. Cattle prices are down; some are 60 per cent of what they were in 1951. Hog prices are down 40 per cent, a declining return in the face of increasing costs.
The government know what should be done. Are they going to accept that circumstance, as they should? They have accepted it with regard to butter and have put in floor prices on butter. The dairy farmers are getting some relief, but the dairy farmers are chiefly in the eastern parts of Canada and in British Columbia. The farmers in the prairies produce good butter-good in quality and in quantity- but the economy is not geared to that. The economy in the prairies is geared chiefly to the production of grain. If the farmers of western Canada are going to be forced into the production of butter and the fattening and finishing of stock, then they will have to do that; but I can assure you that will have its repercussions on production in the other parts of Canada. Sales of wheat and the farmers' returns must increase if the farmers are going to continue in operation. It is fear of the future, with the increase in costs and the declining returns, that is causing the uneasiness in the west.
In 1955 we had one of the most abundant crops of high-grade wheat the west has ever produced, but the deliveries were lower than they ever have been for years. The bins are bulging, with millions of bushels of wheat out in the open fields in the western parts of the province of Saskatchewan and in Alberta. There are piles of wheat, but no elevator space for it. When there is space, no cars are available; the cars are somewhere in the United States. Today we are told that there are freight boats waiting on the Pacific coast for wheat cargoes, and the wheat cannot be shipped out. The farmer on


the prairies is in desperate circumstances because he cannot deliver his grain. Shipping orders come to the farmer at a local point to deliver grain, but he cannot get box cars.
A very acute situation faces the farmer there. When he goes to town the oil man asks him to pay his bills, and the storekeeper who has carried him through the summer asks him what is going to be done about his bill. He receives notice that his municipal taxes are in arrears, and he sees his land listed in the tax arrears list to be placed in the local elevator. He has 4,000 or 5,000 bushels of good wheat in the granary. If he has no money, it is not his fault. He has worked and produced for a year, and now he cannot get any return for it. What is he to do?


An hon. Member:: See the wheat board.


George Hugh Castleden: Ask this government what it intends to do about it. To get over the situation he takes some cattle, decreases his herd abnormally and tries to sell. He takes them to the local stockyards and finds about three firms bidding against him, and has to sell his stock at their prices. He raises a few hogs. He is told to raise hogs by the Minister of Agriculture, to turn his grain into cash. What do we find? Instead of the price he used to get a few years ago, with which he might be able to pay his operating costs, he finds the price of hogs is declining until this year it has reached the floor of 19 cents, which is supposed-


Mr. Sluder:: Two years ago, when the farmer was getting more, you were making the same speech.


George Hugh Castleden: I was not here in 1951, when prices were highest. This is exactly the situation in which the farmer finds himself now. You do not like it, but you know it is a fact. You try to blame the C.C.F. for this. I shall deal with the wheat board shortly. The farmer says to the government, "We cannot deliver our grain. You have no box cars. Your transport controller has sent them into the United States, and they are not available. Our costs are going up. We cannot make our deliveries." The Canadian government has sold less wheat. Other three major exporting countries have increased sales. Australia and Argentina increased their export sales of wheat, and the United States gave it away, which is not difficult.
If more wheat is being used in the world, Canada should be receiving a greater share of the market than it is at the present time. It is not the fault of the wheat board; it is the policies of this government which prevent the sale of that grain. The western

farmer knows that. We have the best wheat in the world, and he knows that too. Why should it not be sold? Since there is a market, why are we not getting it? The Minister of Trade and Commerce is supposed to be one of those men who get things done. I suggest he has a job here he has not done, and the farmers resent the situation.
The farmer in this position says to the government, "I am in a jam. I am loaded down with a burden of debt. It is hard to operate. I have the wheat. The value is here. You keep telling me you are going to sell it. Last July you said you would clear out all the old crop before the new crop arrived, but that has not been done. We have the grain. You say that it will be sold in a little while. How about letting us have a little cash in advance so we can operate? The elevator agents could inspect the bins for efficient storage and seal the bins. Properly stored grain is an asset. We shall let you place the advance on record in our permit book so you will be safely covered."
The farmers held protest meetings and agreed to send a delegation to ask the government if it could help them over the crisis. The answer of the government is a gem. It said, "You poor fellows, we shall take care of you. Just run down to the bank and get some more money at 5 per cent. We shall guarantee that not one banker will lose a nickel on it." Who is asking that the bankers be guaranteed? We are not asking for relief for bankers; we are asking for relief for the harassed man who has done his job and is entitled to his wages for a job well done. He is refused those wages because of the policies of this government. That is where the calamity lies; it does not lie in the production. It is a very serious situation, and the farmer resents it deeply.
I will say that the statement in the speech from the throne in which the government, after the house opened in January, finally admitted that it was going to do something about helping the farmer in regard to the carryovers, was welcome. I believe that will have the support of the people, but it does not help the farmer out of his immediate financial position. It does not put any cash in his pocket. Perhaps when this wheat lying in stock for two or three years is finally sold, that assistance from the government will be a saving to the farmer because it will not cost him so much to carry his grain, and he appreciates it. '
But surely it was a small, mild and deserving request that the farmer made, that he be given an advance on the good solid collateral he had of the money he needs at the present time to help him over a financial
The Address-Mr. Castleden stringency, out of which he cannot get without assistance. He has been placed in this position by this government and is helpless in the situation in which he finds himself. He says, "If you are ensuring that the rest of Canada is prosperous; if you are willing to spend a billion dollars in war contracts in the industrial areas, we too are producing something that could be used for defence purposes and for winning the world to democracy. How about helping us over this situation so we can carry on and continue to produce?" It is the least the government can do for the hard pressed victims of their own wheat policy, but what the government offers them is merely another load upon their backs, another 5 per cent interest. I can tell you that the farmers are deeply resentful at being put in this position.
We had quite an exhibition in the house the other day when the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that because we are advocating advances on farm stored grain we are against the wheat board. What an utterly ridiculous statement for any person to make. To me it is most irresponsible. He knows perfectly well that the C.C.F. party and the farmers of the west stand behind the policy of the wheat board with everything they have. They only got the wheat board after struggling and fighting 40 years for it. The farmers established their wheat pool organizations. They went after the Winnipeg grain exchange and succeeded in closing it.
The line elevators used to buy farmers' grain outright in the fall at depressed prices, at a time when the farmers needed money. They stored the grain, held it at fixed prices in the world market as best they could, boosted the price where they could, and pocketed the difference. When the minister tries to charge us with being against the wheat board I would reply to him that I think the wheat board has suffered more under his policies as Minister of Trade and Commerce than at any other time. The wheat board is a government agency established to handle the farmers' grain and protect them against exploitation by the Winnipeg grain exchange. Of course the setting up of the board has been hard on some of the line elevator companies. Some of them were affected seriously in the years following the commencement of the board's operations.
But who does the minister appoint as transport controller in charge of box cars; the ex-president of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Since he has held that office the allocation of box cars throughout the west has been such as to militate against the wheat pools. Most farmers in Saskatchewan used to deliver their grain to the wheat pool,

The Address-Mr. Castleden but not any more; they could not get box oars.
We tried to find out why box cars were not being allocated to the pools and why they were being sent to the line elevator companies. The farmers had to drive for miles and miles to deliver their grain at all. Space was available in the line elevators because the box cars went to the line elevator companies. For the past four or five years the line elevator companies have been becoming stronger and more powerful. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has been going down so far as the percentage of grain it handles is concerned.
If there is any criticism against the wheat board it is as a result of the policies of the transport controller, one of the members of the board of grain commissioners, whose whole life has been spent in the line elevator company field. He is a man who I believe would like to see the Winnipeg grain exchange re-established. Before that ever happens the farmers of the west will be far more vocal than they are at the present time. They will not be sending only half a dozen representatives to Ottawa. They will fight to maintain the wheat board with every ounce of energy they have. They have not forgotten the way they and their fathers were exploited by the grain exchange for years before the establishment of the wheat board.


Owen C. Trainor: They are perfectly satisfied now?


George Hugh Castleden: They are satisfied with the operation of the wheat board. It is the operation of the policies of the government that is bothering them. The wheat board could do its job and sell the grain if the policies of the government allowed it to do so. The government should give the board the extra assistance necessary to send people throughout the world to sell the best product we have.
We are in competition with the United States treasury. The western farmer knows that across the line the government guarantees the farmer $2 a bushel on the farm. He sees that there are support prices for agricultural products which at least keep their agricultural areas out of the recession in which we find ourselves in western Canada. The western farmer sees that the United States government are sufficiently interested in their farmers to see that the family farm is maintained in that country as part of the American way of life.
With the continuation of the policies of the government in power today the small
farmer is being squeezed out completely, and bankruptcy faces him. If the government do not take some action in the immediate future to relieve the situation they are going to have a revolt on their hands of a kind they have never had before. The farmers of the west are resentful.
I do not know what language the government requires to tell it that the people of the prairies are not satisfied, but I would suggest to the people of the west that the one thing the government does understand is the ballot. Unfortunately the government are sitting here with a vast majority. They do not need to care very much about the pleas of the farmers of the west who rightfully resent the discrimination and callous disregard for their condition.
They look to the government for longterm policies which will alleviate not only the immediate situation but make it possible for them to face the future with some assurance that they will be able to win in the end. They are militant when they see their farm organizations and their wheat board threatened, and they will make their voices heard in no uncertain terms when the opportunity presents itself.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: How many people do you have in your constituency at the moment who are actually bankrupt?


George Hugh Castleden: My constituency is in the park area where there are smaller farms. It is not part of the larger area where they have larger straight grain farms. However, I would say that about 80 per cent of the farmers of my constituency are in debt.


Irvin William Studer: Bankrupt?


George Hugh Castleden: What do you mean by "bankrupt"?


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Hugh Castleden: I might also say that in the Yorkton area there are about 2,000 people listed at the unemployment insurance office looking unsuccessfully for work. I presume these people are facing bankruptcy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand the hon. member for Yorkton has completed his address or does he wish to call it one o'clock?


George Hugh Castleden: May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
fMr. Castleden.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George Hugh Castleden: Before the luncheon recess, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the serious economic plight of the grain producer in the western prairies. I pointed out how he had been caught between rapidly rising costs of production and operation and rapidly diminishing returns during the last number of years. That is a situation that can lead only to bankruptcy. You do not long continue in business when the returns from your operations are less than the costs of operating. I pointed out that the western producer of grain and other products has a feeling of deep resentment toward the Ottawa government, not only for its failure to allow him some advances on the grain he has produced and for which he can obtain nothing with which to pay his expenses, but also for the fact that it is offering to place upon his back a further burden of 5 per cent in the way of interest on loans.
The action of the transport controller, in his failure to provide box cars to allow the shipment of grain, adds further to his resentment. Then the distribution of those box cars in a discriminatory way, thus preventing the farmer from delivering grain to the elevator to which he wishes to deliver it, further adds to his feelings of disgust. He looks over the record, and he watches the method of appointment of members of the board of grain commissioners. In this house we were given the word of the minister that he had received no recommendation from the Saskatchewan wheat pool with regard to certain men, but correspondence subsequently tabled in the house showed that the Saskatchewan wheat pool had recommended these very people for appointment to that job. This fact only adds to the grain producers' mistrust of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the administration as a whole.
The charges that have been made to the effect that we were opposed to the idea of the wheat board are completely unfounded. We have always supported it without any equivocation. To the farmer the maintenance of the wheat board is vital. The expansion of the wheat pools is vital to the producers as a protection against exploitation by the Winnipeg grain exchange. With their very last efforts they will fight to maintain the wheat board and see that it is run properly.
The farm organizations have been extremely bitter in their condemnation of the government responsible for present conditions, both as to the cost of production and markets. They condemn the policies of the
The Address-Mr. Michaud government during whose regime they have seen an expanding and constantly increasing cost of living through the years and as a result of which they now find themselves caught in a position where they are not able in any way to obtain cash for the products they have to sell.
I emphasize the fact that the problem is not just the immediate one of a few dollars cash. There remains the basic problem with regard to costs of production and diminishing returns. This problem will have to be faced if agriculture is to be saved. We are looking to this government to do something about the matter, but so far we have looked in vain.
I am proud to support the amendment as a condemnation of this government on its failure to take effective action in the face of a real and serious problem.
(Translation) :


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Keni, N.B.):: 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. Both did well by themselves and by their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the 1956 session starts auspiciously. Because of the high level of prosperity prevailing in the country, and a higher level of employment than at this time last year, economic conditions are generally satisfactory. True, one sector of the economy, agriculture, is going through a rather difficult period. It is a pressing problem which the government will have to face during this session. A situation such as this, however, adds nothing new to the ordinary duties of any government. Managing the affairs of a country is essentially a complicated job. I would imagine that there never was a government without any problem to solve. This government has shown in the past that it is experienced and efficient enough to solve a difficult proposition, and we can trust that it will find the proper solution to our present agricultural problem.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house to point out to hon. members and to the government all the difficulties that beset our farmers. It has already been done, and I am sure others will like to enlarge upon those difficulties, in their own way. May I be allowed, however, to emphasize at this time, a par-

The Address-Mr. Michaud ticular phase of this situation, which has resulted from the changes that have happened was equally beneficial to the consumer. Since thinking of the rural exodus to industrial centres and of the importance of checking this tendency.
We have to realize that nowadays there is a strong flow of population into the cities. Because of higher wages, of shorter working hours than on the farm, and of other facilities normally found in towns and cities, our country people feel more and more attracted to the industrial sectors of our country. We are being told repeatedly that farming no longer pays. Because working the land seems too difficult, it is given up. Everywhere, along our country roads, we see abandoned farms. These young men who leave the country to swell the number of city workers are leaving behind properties that used to be prosperous farm units. They leave without a qualm and without even finding a purchaser. Farms of up to 100 acres of tillable land, with good buildings, are put up for sale for as little as $500, yet they remain unoccupied and unproductive. And this goes on despite the fact that the young people in our rural areas do not know where to settle. In the face of such a situation, what are we to expect for the future of our farm people, whose merits and greatness were so often exalted? Are the noble accounts praising the advantages of country life nothing but fancy or fiction? No. Man's first necessity is to feed himself and his family; and the soil is and remains his sole provider. The land is also a guarantee of moral security. We can at this point repeat those words of writer Henri Pourrat:
Land, there is man's element; and the tilling of it is man's foremost task. When mortals have attained power, they can think of less simple endeavours, such as manufacturing automatic pencils, writing crime fiction, making streamlined automobiles. That is more wondrous still, with this undefinable touch of insignificance which clings to all human values. Tilling the land remains a greater endeavour.
Man will forever have to deal with winter and summer, rain and sunshine, soil and water, grass, trees, wheat, and the vine. Those are the tangible things. They are simple and lasting things. In the worst calamities, these will always provide a fresh start. After crises, wars, revolutions, after the resounding crash of crumbling civilizations, there will always remain the great silence of nature: the earth that turns soundlessly, clover, rye, oaks living their humble lives, timed on the regularity of seasons.
Can we forget that Canadian history truly began when valiant men cut down trees to clear through the forests a path wide enough to make room for houses? Is it superfluous to state that in rural parishes we find everyiMr. Michaud.]

thing that ensures durability and stability? Today, as in times gone by, life on the farm provides a favourable atmosphere where the noblest virtues and the soundest traditions will bloom. Rural life guarantees a strong, well-balanced race, sound in body and mind.
Farmers are cool-headed and thoughtful. They are less easily taken in by rash innovations and dangerous waves of opinion. They saved us many times from moral surrenders which threatened our integrity. True farmers can raise their soul to summits where the real meaning of life is better understood.
Mr. Speaker, those traditions, this deeply religious rural population must be preserved in all its integrity. To that end, the agricultural family must be guaranteed its rightful place. It embodies, on the Canadian scene, factors of strength, of balance and of dignity which heighten and enrich our whole national heritage.
(Text):
I wish at this time, Mr. Speaker, to commend the government upon its butter price support policy. Since the introduction of this policy seven years ago it has proven beneficial both to the producer and the consumer. It had the net result of eliminating speculation from the butter market. We often hear it said in certain quarters that this subsidy resulted in creating large and costly surpluses. This, however, is not a true picture of the situation. At no time since the introduction of this measure in Canada have the annual butter stocks exceeded the maximum consumption by more than 5 per cent. This is a small surplus indeed, considering the stabilizing influence of this policy in the marketing of this food commodity. Undoubtedly this support program has permitted the dairy farmer of this country to stay in business. It had its effects, not only on the price of butter but also on other dairy commodities such as fluid milk and cheese, the returns from which are closely dependent on the price of butter itself.
It must be pointed out also that this policy was equally beneficial to the consumer. Since its inception the consumer has been permitted to buy butter at a stable price within the scope of the value of this commodity and the ability of the consumer to pay. The situation is far better than it was before this control measure, when the producer never knew what his returns would be and the

consumer did pot know what price he would be called upon to pay for a pound of butter.
It is true that this has resulted, during the past few years, in certain butter surpluses which must be disposed of on world markets at a loss to the national treasury and to the Canadian ratepayer, but it is not long ago that the reverse situation existed. There was a butter shortage in Canada, and in order to protect the consumer against paying exorbitant prices for this commodity butter was imported into Canada. It is only just, therefore, that the dairy farmer also should receive protection when surpluses arise on the domestic market. This can only be done through the measures adopted by the government of exporting these surpluses at current world market price levels. In this respect let me quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, dated November 28, 1955, with which I agree:
Last summer when some government-held butter was sold to Czechoslovakia at 21 cents a pound below the support price in Canada, there was much talk of the communists being given a "bargain". The same talk is being revived now in connection with the considerably larger sale (through a Dutch importer) to East Germany.
These are no bargains at all. The European countries in question, or any others, could easily buy butter elsewhere at the same figure (37 cents) that is quoted by the Canadian government agency. For the world price happens to be substantially below present levels on this continent.
It is sometimes suggested that if the government occasionally has more butter on its hands than it knows what to do with, the surplus should be disposed of to Canadians instead of abroad. This policy has been followed to a very limited extent in the supplying of butter at cut rates to public institutions; some 4,000,000 pounds have been used up in this manner. But to offer the government surplus to the public as a whole would simply break the butter market, for who would pay the present market price if he thought he could get butter for perhaps 20 cents less?
It is estimated that since its introduction the price support on butter has cost the ratepayers of this country less than one-fifth of a cent per pound. As stated in the above editorial, is this too stiff a price to pay for keeping butter values at a fairly stable level for the benefit of both producers and consumers? Is it too much to pay for helping an important national industry adjust itself to the formidable competition offered by margarine? The farm people of the country are contributing their share in maintaining the degree of protected economy as it prevails in Canada. Most of the commodities they buy from our manufacturers enjoy protection in some form or another. Is it too much to ask that, in turn, the commodities the farmers produce also get a certain degree of protection?
A few days before I left home for Ottawa I had the opportunity of discussing this whole 07509-20
The Address-Mr. Montgomery problem with a friend. At the outset of our conversation he thought it was an abnormal situation that he had to pay 65 cents a pound for butter, while our surpluses were being sold to other countries at 37 cents per pound. In the course of the conversation I brought to his attention the same argument I have just brought to the attention of this house. In the end he admitted that the course followed by the government was fair and wise. He felt this was a matter that should be explained to every Canadian butter consumer. My friend admitted he had been led to view the situation unfavourably by certain recent press reports and radio broadcasts. In the light of our discussion he became satisfied that the government's action with regard to butter was fair both to the consumer and the producer.
We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, are dedicated to the task of bringing before Canadian citizens the legislative measures of a good, sound government.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Before directing my remarks to the subjects I intend to take up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of extending congratulations to the members of this house who have been elected for the first time. I hope they will enjoy their labours in parliament and their associations with the rest of us, and will receive the recognition they deserve from this government as the elected representatives of their constituents, regardless of the party to which they belong.
I would not miss this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of extending congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mrs. Shipley). She deserves those congratulations and the honour which was given to her. As the speech from the throne indicates, there will be legislation this session to give women equal pay with men in industries under federal jurisdiction. I think it was only right that she should receive the honour to' speak first on that issue on behalf of the women of this country.
In justice, I feel I must also mention one of the outstanding Conservative lady members of this house, who deserves congratulations for having pressed this matter so vigorously in the last few years that she has convinced the government that the time has come to introduce this legislation. She will get due credit for it. Last, but by no means least, I should like to congratulate the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Laflamme), who spoke easily and well. I am sure he will prove to be a good representative of his constituents.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery
There are several matters, Mr. Speaker, with which I could deal. Like most hon. members I am chiefly interested in matters which affect my constituents. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Michaud), who just took his seat, particularly his remarks with regard to butter. I also read with interest the speech the other day of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy). I congratulate him on his remarks and also the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). If this government does not wake up and take a warning from these hon. members who are supporters of the government, it will be in trouble.
If the members of the government read the speeches of the hon. members from New Brunswick they will know that everything is not well in that province. These hon. members would not be rising in their places and criticizing the government and trying to point out that improvements could be made if they were not giving the views of their constituents. It is pretty nearly time, Mr. Speaker, that somebody supported the opposition in this house, who for the last few years have been pointing out that the problems of agriculture and of various other industries have not received the attention they should have received in the interests of the agricultural people of the country.
My chief concern is agriculture, and I am going to direct my remarks chiefly to that industry. It makes no difference whether the agriculturist is in the west, whether he is a wheat grower, a dairy farmer in the central part of Canada or in some other part of the country, a small farmer, a vegetable grower, or whether he is a potato grower in my constituency, in Prince Edward Island or in British Columbia; the financial position of the farmer today is serious, and it is serious all over the country. It is time this government paid a little attention to what hon. members are saying, both their supporters and members of the opposition. They have been given fair warning.
The production of food is a very important industry. When the farmers are prosperous the whole economy of the country is stimulated. When the farmers cannot sell their products, and in addition cannot get anything for their labour because markets are limited and prices are low, then there is something wrong, particularly when there is a market in this country for the produce grown by the farmers.
The past two years have been abundant years. Crops have been good; yields have been larger than usual. This has been the situation of the industry in my section of the country, in Prince Edward Island, in other


parts of Canada and in the United States. We had a larger crop of potatoes last year than usual, but we are hearing so much about surpluses in this country that we are kind of getting tired of it. With the exception of wheat, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any surpluses are grown.
According to the facts presented before the tariff board in this city last July, more potatoes are consumed every year in Canada than are grown; therefore we have no surplus of potatoes in this country so long as our own people can consume them. But what do we find? Owing to the policy pursued by this government-and we cannot convince the Minister of Agriculture that it should be changed-we find that we have no access to our own markets. We have no access to our own markets chiefly because those markets are supplied by foreign products, which are allowed to come in here in competition with our own farmers' produce.
We are not growing more potatoes than are necessary in Canada. Our own people want those potatoes. They need them and they can consume them. The only reason they are not getting them is that the consumer buys where he can buy cheapest, and we are in competition with a foreign country. The producers of potatoes in a foreign country are permitted to dump their products in here. In many instances they have a shorter haulage distance. According to statements made to the tariff board, they are more efficient growers. The efficiency of the United States potato grower results from the policy followed by this government. That is the answer.
When you protect an industry that industry can grow bigger, and the bigger the industry grows the more efficient it becomes. In my constituency we have just as efficient potato growers as are found in the United States, when conditions are similar. The efficiency of the United States potato growers has resulted from their protected market and their quota system. If we were given a fair chance in our own Canadian markets our potato growers could grow potatoes just as efficiently, and they are doing it in some places.
Potatoes are vital to our economy. It is only right that I should place the feeling of the people of my constituency before this House of Commons, because they do not believe they received a fair deal in the last season. In the first place, no farmer in this country of plenty should be asked to work, to labour and to gamble on his crop, and then take a chance on what he may get out of it, when everybody else around him is protected. Industry of all kinds in this country is protected. The gold mining industry is protected and subsidized to the tune of many millions

of dollars. But what happens to the potato growers in the eastern part of the country? The rest of the country needs those potatoes, and that has been the hue and cry ever since the days before confederation. The inducements held out to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the rest of us in the maritime provinces to come into confederation were that trade would be encouraged east and west instead of north and south. We were promised that if we would come into confederation we would be given the opportunity to take our products into the markets of central Canada in competition with goods produced and grown there.
It all comes down to one thing, and that is that the transportation problem between the maritime provinces and central Canada is something that should be looked after by the federal government. It should not be left to the railroads to fix their rates at the point where they pay. It was never anticipated that we would have to pay heavy freight rates on long hauls in order to place our goods in the west and encourage east and west trade, or that we would be in competition with a foreign country which is dumping its goods in this country at prices less than the cost of production. For a time this year they were able to ship in potatoes as Canada No. 1 grade when they were smaller than the potatoes we were allowed to ship as Canada No. 1.
In making the final arrangements, because of the policy which has been forced upon our farmers the producers of potatoes must carry back home culls to a greater extent than they should be asked to do. The only market for culls is the starch factory, or to be used as feed.
I notice the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, but I should like to ask his parliamentary assistant or anyone else on the government side why it is that you can go into a government hotel like the Chateau down here and get table potatoes which are smaller than Canada No. 1. Those potatoes are not 2| inches in diameter; I do not think they would average more than 2 inches. Why are they being purchased as Canada No. 1? Why is the restaurant upstairs using potatoes that would not measure up to the size of Canada No. 1. Where are those potatoes coming from? It looks to me as though the United States can ship in any size they want while we have no protection whatsoever.
I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has come into the chamber, because I have a few words to say to him and I hope he will harken to them. They are not critical words, but when they are interpreted I think he will realize what the people down there are thinking. This potato situation was known 67509-20}
The Address-Mr. Montgomery in September, but because of the policy this government was following, because of the increased yield in the United States as well as in Canada, because United States potatoes were coming in here during the early part of the season as Canada No. 1 when they were smaller than what we could put on the market as Canada No. 1, our producers and potato dealers' tried immediately to get in touch with the Department of Agriculture in order to have a conference so that something might be done to relieve the situation which the farmers were facing. They could get nowhere.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had two conferences with them.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I do not know whether it is the minister's fault and that is why I am speaking to the minister directly. There was no conference arranged. Wire after wire was sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who represents New Brunswick, and we presume word was sent from him to the department, but still no conference was forthcoming. There was no conference until around December 18. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected, but that is the information I have. Following that conference there was a further conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend says he wants to be corrected and he is putting this on Hansard. At the moment I am not sure of the other exact dates, but there certainly was a conference during the first week of December. There was a discussion earlier than that, but during the federal-provincial conference, which was held in the first week in December, there were a number of discussions on the question.


Gage Workman Montgomery: As I understand it, during the first week of December the ministers of agriculture of the different provinces met in Ottawa with officials of the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Members from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island governments had separate discussions with the Department of Agriculture officials, at which I was present.


Gage Workman Montgomery: That was not granted at the request of the potato men. As I understand it, that was the first time the matter was brought to a point where all the parties could discuss it. The first meeting after that at which the potato growers and potato dealers could give their story and review their case was very close to December 18, if it was not on that date. Following that there were further discussions, and then the program of diversion was pronounced some time around January 4 or 5.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery
Going on from there I should like to know why the program has not gone into effect even yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will have to go down to New Brunswick to find out.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I have just been down to New Brunswick and the government, as I understand, has yet to tell the people and the potato growers what they are prepared to do. There is just one thing they said they would do; that is, to guarantee $1 a barrel, but they did that after the market price of potatoes was $1.25.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend apparently does not understand it. I have the order in council in front of me which was passed a considerable time ago. It is not $1 a barrel of 165 pounds of graded potatoes, it is $1 a barrel for potatoes of garden run taken to the plant. The $1 per barrel is paid on that basis, which is an even higher price than my hon. friend has indicated.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I suggest that the minister inform his officials in New Brunswick, because that is not what they are telling the potato producers in New Brunswick.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is they who told me.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I hope the minister can furnish me with a copy of that order in council, because that certainly is not the information being circulated. It is $1 per barrel of 165 pounds of Canada No. 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not.


Gage Workman Montgomery: That is what I would like to have information on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member must realize that he is taking part in a debate, and that this is not a time for questions and answers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will send this over, and my hon. friend will note that it is $1 per barrel of 165 pounds for potatoes spot graded. That means it is $1 per barrel for the potatoes as they are taken in to be graded afterward.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I am afraid the minister would not agree with some of his potato inspectors. We will leave that, and time will tell whether the minister or the inspectors are right. I hope the minister is right, because that would be an improvement over the information that is being passed around.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the recommendation to council and it cannot be anything else but right.


Gage Workman Montgomery: That was my interpretation, and I appreciate the information the minister has given. I do want to say a word

about the program. This government should have a policy governing potatoes. New Brunswick grows approximately 20 per cent of the potatoes grown in Canada, and Prince Edward Island is also a large producer. My constituency and the fringes of my constituency grow from 75 to 80 per cent of the potatoes grown in New Brunswick. This industry is vital to us, and we submit that there should be a potato policy, just as there is a wheat policy or any other kind of policy. That potato policy should be such that it would automatically come into effect when the price is so low as it was this year.
No two farmers may agree exactly on the cost of production. Some will tell you it is $1.75 a barrel, some will tell you it is more, some less. But I think it is fair to state that our largest and most efficient growers claim-and this corresponds with the growers in the state of Maine, who are large growers-that one cent a pound is a very fair average. That means $1.65 a barrel. When the government has guaranteed a price of $1 they are guaranteeing only 36 cents a bushel, which is just slightly over half the cost.


James Garfield Gardiner: On what we are talking about, it is 42 cents a bushel.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I shall concede that if the minister's interpretation is the correct one it will come to about 42 cents a bushel. But here is the worst part of the program, and this is where our people feel hurt. It is too late coming into effect. I do not know whether the minister or members of this house realize it, but potatoes are a product that cannot be handled like grain or some other products. They must be put into storage before frost comes. If there is no storage they must be sold. The minute they are frozen they are a loss.
Second, these farmers have to gamble when they put in their crop. Many of them have to borrow for their fertilizer. They have to work all summer. They have to buy their sprays and a good deal of costly machinery, which involves large capital investment. When harvest time comes they must try to sell enough potatoes to pay part of their bills, because they have to live. They have to pay their grocery bills, clothing bills and so on. They need money; some need it worse than others.
In a fall like the last one, many farmers have to sell their potatoes at 65, 70 or 75 cents a barrel. A barrel is 165 pounds. When the farmer was selling potatoes at 65 and 70 cents a barrel he was losing about 90 cents a barrel on the cost of production. Had

this program come into effect when it should have, on October 1, it would have saved a great many men heavy losses.
That is what our potato producers have been trying to impress on our government for a number of years. From hearing some of the other members speak it would seem that they have heard some of the potato growers and dealers in New Brunswick talking. Some of those people were very strong friends of this government a very short time ago, but I do not think they have the same feeling now that this government is doing all it can for the people in the potato business. The people who really needed that help were the people who had to sell between October 1 and November 5, the latter being about the latest date in any year that one can take a chance on keeping potatoes, even on ground floors. Those who need money have to sell the potatoes right out of the fields. How can the economy of any constituency or any part of the country be kept up when the producer, who has worked all summer, has to sell his product for 90 cents less than it cost him to produce it?
There is another matter to which I would like to refer. Unless I am wrong this program terminates on April 30. It has not yet gone into force. Up to the night before last no potatoes had gone into starch under this diversion program, and I doubt that any will be going in under this program for another week or so. That leaves the months of February, March and April as the only three possible months in which this program will have any effect. I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture and the members of this government that a program that stops at the end of April is not going to have the beneficial effect it should have.
These people down east do not feel they are coming here and asking for a handout. As has been mentioned before, because of prefederation agreements these people are asking for an adjustment for unfair treatment. There are many ways in which such an adjustment can be made. There are no complaints through the country when the government subsidizes the freight charges on coal, when it subsidizes or helps to pay the freight on grain from the west to the east. If the federal government were to live up to the pre-federation agreements it would help to pay the freight on potatoes from the maritime provinces to central Canada. That would be only living up to the trade your forefathers made, when we were supposed to be able to place our products in central Canada in competition with the markets here.
We are not getting that privilege. We have a right to ask the federal government for it,
The Address-Mr. Montgomery and the federal government has a right to take out of the treasury the money to pay the difference in freight rates if we cannot place our products on the market at competitive prices, so the farmers can recoup the cost of production. That should be a policy that would work both ways. We do not come here asking this government for any other assistance.
To summarize what I have said, this government has procrastinated. It had plenty of warning. I know myself that wires were sent to the department in Ottawa, to the Minister of Labour, and that representations were made by the secretary of the horticultural council of Canada. Everybody was working to try to arrange a conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has referred to this and he has also referred to the fact that I am sitting listening to him. I want to tell him that there were conferences. I do not remember the exact dates, but conferences were held with those people. What they were interested in at that time was not selling potatoes for starch. Proposals were sent to them, but they did not accept them.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I would be glad to listen to the minister make a speech later and explain all this, because he has a good deal of explaining to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall not waste my time now answering and explaining it to you. I shall take it up with the right people.


George Alexander Drew: Little Caesar.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already explained it fully to those people, and they do understand me.


An hon. Member:: He has plenty to explain.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I do not think the minister himself really understands the situation we are in there. Otherwise I do not think he would be so hard-hearted that he would not do something for these people.


James Garfield Gardiner: I met them three or four times. I do not know how many more times I should have met them.


Gage Workman Montgomery: We farmers have lost a good deal of money as the result of a program which now appears to be very late in coming. It seems to me this government should have decided how much it was going to contribute to that program, and let the farmers or the starch producers know at once.
As I have said, in summing up, what I should like to impress upon the minister is that this is not going to be the last season.

The Address-Mr. Montgomery It has not been the first. Two years ago a marketing board was found to be not satisfactory by any means.
Nobody blames the government for not wanting to go into that sort of deal again with the same type of people handling it. Nobody wants that. But you will find that most of our farmers want a square deal. They want a program that will be operated openly, aboveboard and honestly so that a few cannot take advantage of many others. That is all I wish to say about potatoes, but I thought I should concentrate more on that subject because we are being hurt most in that field.
We want the government to continue its support of the dairy industry. We are not satisfied with any explanation offered yet regarding the disposal of surplus butter. We also believe there would be no surplus butter in Canada if our own people had the opportunity of consuming it. I am not so fortunate as the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Michaud). If he can explain to his constituents that the present policy is a proper one I commend him. He is a smart boy. It cannot be explained that easily in some other parts of New Brunswick, and I doubt if it can be explained that easily in some other parts of Canada.
If there is any charity involved I think charity should begin at home, and a lot of other people think so too. We are forcing a great many people to eat margarine, which may or may not be as good as butter; but why should we protect one product and not allow our people the opportunity to have the other product?
I am not going to take the time to tell the government how the surplus butter can be dealt with. There are difficulties in the way, but I know there are people in the Department of Agriculture who are smart enough to handle the situation so that the poor people of the country may have the opportunity of eating our butter instead of margarine, and be able to buy it at the same price. It would not affect the marketing of good butter at all.
I should also like to deal shortly with the C.B.C. I do not intend to say much because the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) did so the other day so much better than I could. If the government feel that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is doing the best job that can be done so far as television programs are concerned, then all I have to say is it would be a good thing if the C.B.C. would get out of the field and hand it over to somebody else. Even a bunch of amateurs could put on better programs than we are getting in New Brunswick. They are


a disgrace, and should not be shown on television screens. If anything will lead to more delinquency it is some of the programs that are being shown, and I commend the hon. member for Westmorland for what he said the other day regarding this matter.
The only other point I wish to mention has to do with income tax. I think there should be changes in the act so our farmers will be shown a little more consideration for the efforts they have made in trying to keep books. I am not an auditor, and I do not wish to criticize the income tax officials too severely. I have found them most co-operative. They will almost bend over backward in an effort to live within the law and the regulations, but the law should be changed. I pass on this suggestion to the government for consideration, because I am not the only one who has encountered this situation. There should be a change so that honest farmers who are trying to keep books will not be told by the field man when he comes around that their books are no good and cannot be accepted.
Most of these farmers are not too familiar with keeping books. They know pretty well what they are doing, and most of them are honest; nevertheless the field man will say he is not satisfied and he will ask a lot of questions and get the farmer mixed up. The farmer may then get mad and refuse to answer any more questions. Thereupon the field man goes back to his office and issues an arbitrary assessment. It may not be too much in some cases, but in other cases the amount is large. Regardless of the amount the farmer says, "Well, what can I do about it? You cannot fight the government." The farmer pays it if he can. I do not think that the government intended that the act should be administered in that way. I believe the matter is worth looking into, and adjustments of some sort by way of amendments to the act should be introduced so that any reasonable set of books will be accepted as sufficient.
Then the officials will not make a farmer feel that he is guilty from the moment they walk in the door, and that the only way he can get out of the situation is to prove himself innocent. That is the impression that is given, and it is wrong. I know that many departmental officials do not want that to be the case, but that is the impression that is getting abroad. I am satisfied I am not the only member who has met with that situation.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, just before I came in I believe the hon. member referred to the fact that neither I nor my parliamentary assistant were in the house. I am sure the hon. member would not want the impression to go abroad that my parliamentary assistant is not usually in the house.

He is in the hospital at present and is not able to be here. I do not think there is any member who attends more regularly than he does, and I should like to make that explanation.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I hope my remarks did not sound the way the minister has taken them. I just mentioned the tact that neither one was here. I am very sorry that the parliamentary assistant is in the hospital. I addressed my remarks to any other members of the government who were present in order that they might convey any information they thought was worth while.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in his speech today the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton asked why the parliamentary restaurant was not buying No. 1 Canadian potatoes. Matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Speaker are not usually dealt with in the house except during the consideration of the estimates. Citation No. 302 of Beauchesne, third edition, is the authority on that point. However, I want to put the hon. member's mind at rest by informing him and the house that the parliamentary restaurant always buys No. 1 Canadian potatoes. Up to last Monday we had purchased New Brunswick potatoes in 25-bag lots at a price of $1.45 a bag. The market this week is $1.85 for No. 1 Canadian potatoes from New Brunswick and $2.40 for No. 1 Canadian potatoes from Prince Edward Island. Therefore we bought No. 1 potatoes from New Brunswick in 25-bag lots. We shall continue to buy No. 1 Canadian potatoes at the best market price.
(Translation):


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, may I first be allowed to congratulate the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), as well as the seconder, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme). Both made remarkable speeches and brought upon themselves the attention not only of their respective constituents, whom they represent brilliantly here, but also of the people of their province and of the country at large. I most wholeheartedly endorse the congratulations they have received from their colleagues, in every part of this house, since the beginning of this debate.
The women of Canada could not be better represented in this house than by the hon. member for Timiskaming. On the other hand there are very few of the younger members of this house to whom a more auspicious political career could be predicted than to the hon. member for Bellechasse.
The Address-Mr. Arsenault
I also wish to congratulate the new members who, a few days ago, took their seats for the first time in this house. I extend particular greetings to four new colleagues from the province of Quebec, namely: the hon. members for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent), for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Menard). Their presence here is a new and eloquent expression of confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his government on the part of the people of Quebec.
Our four new colleagues from Quebec have no doubt undisputable merits of their own, but there is one among them on whom I wish to call particular attention, Mr. Speaker, in view of the personal victory he won in his constituency over the combined forces of his adversaries in extremely difficult circumstances and after one of the bitterest campaigns I have been given to witness personally. During that by-election, which won him the right to represent one of the greatest counties in the province, the hon. member for Temiscouata has indeed shown uncommon leadership and thus proved himself worthy of the man whose name he so proudly bears. His victory is due above all to his courage, his purposefulness, his selfcontrol, the confidence with which he inspired the electors in his county, and the dignity he showed while facing fierce and often unscrupulous opponents. The imposing majority given the hon. member for Temiscouata by his constituents in such circumstances should be a lesson to his opponents in the future.
Mr. Speaker, since the start of this debate we have heard a lot about the western farmer.
Though we are well aware of the plight of our western farmers, we must not forget that there are farmers elsewhere in this country, whose problems are quite as worthy of the government's and the people's attention.
This is why I intend to speak to you today, as I have done many times in the past, about our eastern farmers and their problems and, more particularly, of one of their problems, which undoubtedly deserves urgent attention.
If the western farmer grows wheat, Mr. Speaker, the eastern farmer produces butter, apples, potatoes, among other commodities and, more especially pulpwood.

The Address-Mr. Arsenault
The question of the price and sale of butter has been at least temporarily settled by the setting of a floor price, under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and by selling part of our surpluses at the world price on various export markets. These two government measures, which have been well received by the main agricultural organizations in this country, more particularly by the Catholic farmers' union, in the province of Quebec, have helped in no small way to maintain the standard of living of the Canadian milk and butter producers.
As far as apples and potatoes are concerned, about which we have just been told by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), we know that large crops have been raised by eastern farmers. In some districts a great many potato producers will have a hard time getting an adequate return on the sale of this commodity, so as to cover their production costs.
That is a problem to which the Liberal government has attended successfully in the past and to which, at this time, it is giving close attention.
There remains the marketing of pulp wood. The farmers and settlers of eastern Canada are large producers of this commodity, cutting almost a million cords a year, providing in this way a necessary if not indispensable complement to the rural economy of Quebec and the maritimes.
True, there is a market for the farmers' and settler's pulpwood, but this market, not always being subject to the law of supply and demand is often given over to the rule that might makes right, or to speculation.
The eastern farmer could partake in larger measure of the prosperity of this country if he were in a position to receive at all times a fair price for his products, more particularly for the pulpwood which he offers for sale every year.
When, because of overproduction, he has trouble getting a fair price for his butter, his apples, his potatoes or his other farm products, he understands the reason for this condition. It is a matter of supply and demand.
What he cannot always understand is that pulpwood, the only one of his products for which there exists a practically unlimited demand, does not bring him a greater return, in proportion, than his farm products for
[Mr. Arsenault.)
which there is no or hardly any market in periods of overproduction.
In one case, because of overproduction of farm products and the law of supply and demand, the eastern farmer must at times be content with a meagre return for his long days of work. In the other case, that of pulpwood, for which there exists a practically unlimited market, the law of supply and demand seldom comes into play and, in order to provide the necessities of life for his family, the farmer or the settler producing pulpwood, is too often forced to submit to an arbitrary system, in which he still comes out the loser when he is not the victim of obvious exploitation.
It is the province of Quebec which controls the Canadian newsprint industry, with more than half the production for Canada as a whole and, sad to say, it is in the province of Quebec that the bushworker is the worst paid for his labour, and that the farmer and the settler get the lowest price for the pulpwood they market.
The Canadian pulp and newsprint industry reached new records in 1955. Lumber, pulp and newsprint all reached new unparalleled levels.
For the ten months ending November 1, 1955, sales of all forest products to all countries reached the incredible total of $1,265 million, an increase of $145 million over the corresponding period of last year.
During the same period, sales of all Canadian products reached $3,578,200,000, an increase of $393,700,000.
Newsprint production for the whole of 1955 has been estimated at 6,180,000 tons, a gain of $2,588,000 tons since 1945. However great, that increase does not meet a growing demand, particularly in the United States which take up 80 per cent of Canadian production.
The expansion which is planned and some new undertakings will bring the estimated production of our paper industry to 6,200,000 tons in 1956, 6,575,000 tons in 1957 and
6,900,000	tons in 1958.
We have what would be a very good market for all the wood which the eastern Canada farmer and settler could place at the disposal of the pulp and paper companies, were it not for the fact that, in that field, the law of supply and demand is tampered with, directly or indirectly.
In this way, the eastern farmers and settlers would be assured of a fair and well-deserved

compensation for the poor returns from their farms, the products of which are often difficult to market in times of overproduction, as a result of the hard and fast economic laws of supply and demand.
In other words, the prices paid for pulp-wood, and more particularly to the farmers and settlers in the province of Quebec, should not be left to the discretion of powerful, though perhaps well-meaning, trusts, nor to the whims of speculators.
The prices of pulpwood bought from the farmers and settlers should, at least in the province of Quebec, be established on a fair basis which any pulpwood producer could understand.
In order to provide that basis, it would be necessary to set as follows the items which enter into the calculation of the price paid to producers of pulpwood.
1.	The value of standing timber.
2.	The cutting rate, including piling and opening of roads for haulage.
3.	The cost of haulage to the points where trucks can pick up and carry pulpwood in normal conditions.
4.	Improvement works, upkeep, fees for right of way and damages.
5.	The protection, marking out and upkeep of boundaries, fences and forestry works.
6.	Unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation board, and fire insurance on timber cut in danger periods.
7.	A reasonable profit.
In most areas of the province of Quebec the value placed on each of those items is as follows:
1.	It is generally recognized that the value of standing timber is of at least $5 a cord.
2.	The cutting rate for farmers' and settlers' timber should always be equal to the minimum set yearly through collective bargaining, for the same work, on the companies' timber limits. For the year 1954-55 that item would have been $5.50 a cord.
3.	The haulage rate for settlers' and farmers' pulpwood, at delivery points, should be equal to the average rate for the same operation on the companies' timber limits, which varies with the cost of manual and horse labour. With a cost of $9.50 a day for manual labour and $3 a day for horse labour at the present time, this item would come to $2.50 a cord.
The Address-Mr. Arsenault
4.	Improvement works, the maintenance of tracks, the building of roads, fees for right of way come to 50 cents a cord.
5.	Fire protection and prevention; fences, and forestry works implying rational and selective cutting might total $1 a cord.
6.	The various expenditures with regard to unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation board, and fire insurance for lumbering operations in danger periods would probably be covered by an amount of 75 cents a cord.
7.	A reasonable profit might be estimated at 20 per cent of the total of the first six items, that is $3.05 a cord under present conditions.
When adding the various items of this basic operation, which I believe to be fair and adequate: value of uncut timber, $5; lumbering, $5.50; haulage, $2.50; improvements, 50 cents; protection, fences and forestry work, $1; unemployment insurance workmen's compensation and fire insurance, 75 cents; profits of 20 per cent of foregoing, $3.05, which we believe to be fair; we get for wood marketed by the farmers and settlers a total operational cost of $18.30 a cord at shipping point, that is at the highway or railway station, whereas in various sectors of the province, the same wood, at the same shipping points but cut by pulp and paper companies on crown property would cost them from $19 to $25 a cord and often more.
This obviously does not include the cost oi transportation of the wood from the shipping point to the factory, this price varying with the distance.
With somewhat more than a cord of pulpwood it is possible to manufacture a ton of newsprint. The cost of producing a ton oi newsprint in a modern mill is approximately
as follows:
Wood: mechanical wood pulp, 86
per cent, at $32 per cord . .	$ 27.51
chemical wood pulp, 14 per
cent with	50	per	cent yield 8.9(Water: 0-12 per 1,000	gallons	2.4(Steam	
1.4;Power	
5 4(Labour	
7.5cMaintenance	
2.8(Administration	
2.25

306	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Arsenault		
To which should be	added indirect costs	
such as:		
Overhead 		.... $ 8.90	
Debt retirement ...	.... 3.60	
	.... 0.40	
Interest on capital		 0.30	
Selling agency ....	.... 2.00	15.20
		$ 73.48
As far as the selling price of a ton of newsprint is concerned, the mills receive $117 a ton in Quebec and $111.60 in New York after subtracting transportation costs which bring this price to $126. This leaves the paper mills a margin of net profit of between $35 and $40 per ton of newsprint.
During the winter of 1954-55 pulpwood was bought from the farmers and settlers of Quebec at $10 or $11 on the average per cord of 128 cubic feet at the shipping point, that is $7 or $8 less than the production costs as appearing in the items I have just brought to your attention. In some localities, settlers received as little as $7.50 a cord for their wood.
Thanks to the representations made by the Liberal members in this house during the previous session on behalf of the pulpwood producers of the province, and to the educational campaign conducted during the summer and the fall of last year by the forestry section of the Catholic farmers union, under the leadership of Mr. Samuel Audette, forestry manager of the UCC federation, the prices of pulpwood were increased on the main by $2 to $3 a cord in the province of Quebec to reach an average price of $12 or $13 a cord and sometimes more.
However, as can be seen from the breakdown I just gave, these prices are still far from sufficient to cover the cost of operation and insure a small margin of profit to the producers of pulpwood.
Several pulp and paper companies have, nowever, given evidence of their will to cooperate, and have shown themselves anxious to contribute to the solution of this important problem of the rural economy of our province.
Negotiations are at present being carried out on this matter between officers of the Catholic farmers union and representatives of the pulp and paper industry. Moreover, on January 17 the executive of the Catholic farmers union submitted a brief to the Hon. J. S. Bourque, minister of lands and forests of the province of Quebec, on this important matter.


The Catholic farmers union requested the establishment of a minimum average price of $20 for an apparent 8 foot by 4 foot by 4 foot cord of good commercial grade resinous wood and of varieties at present accepted for the manufacture of pulp and brought to a carriage road.
Moreover, the Catholic farmers union has asked that the felling rate on crown lands be such as to permit the buying of wood from the woodlots of the farmers. In other words, the C.F.U. wants a legislation identical with that existing elsewhere, for instance in Ontario since 1937, authorizing the province not only to set the minimum price to be paid the farmer or the settler for his pulpwood, but also to fix the quantities of wood which the pulp and paper companies would have to buy from the farmers and the settlers, having regard to their other sources of supply.
The Hon. Mr. Bourque answered that the request of the C.F.U. would receive consideration, but he suggested two ways of improving, according to him, the situation of the farmers and the settlers who sell pulpwood to the companies.
Farmers, he said, should not cut an inch of wood before they have a sale contract, and they should also get together to fix the price and stick to the price they fix.
Anyone who knows anything about the vast problem of marketing pulpwood by the farmers and settlers, will admit that, on the face of it, both solutions suggested by the minister are unrealistic, impractical and unacceptable, if not ridiculous.
It is indeed very much to be regretted that the hon. minister of lands and forests of the province of Quebec does not seem to realize that, without some action by the provincial government, or the goodwill of the companies, thousands of small pulpwood producers will continue to be unfairly treated because most of the pulp and paper companies dispose of endless woodland resources in the province, and are using or abusing this privilege, by maintaining the low prices that prevailed for the past few years for pulpwood marketed by the farmers and settlers.
As the province of Quebec has sole jurisdiction with regard to the crown lands, it is up to the provincial government of Quebec to put some order in those conditions.
(Text):


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, since wheat marketing is one of the main

subjects of discussion in western Canada at the present time, and since I represent a constituency that is predominantly agricultural, and one that contains some of the very best wheat land to be found in western Canada, I intend to confine my remarks mainly to the subject of wheat marketing.
We in this group intend to support the C.C.F. subamendment which criticizes the government for their failure to make advances against grain stored on the farm. That does not mean that we agree 100 per cent with the details of the subamendment, but on the other hand it does mean that we are 100 per cent behind the general principle contained therein, namely, that advances should be made against grain stored on the farms. Some hon. members may recall that two years ago we had a resolution on the order paper to that effect. I am not worried in any way by the suggestion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that support for that subamendment will be regarded as opposition to the wheat board, since a suggestion of that kind is too nonsensical to need any reference to it. I merely point out that as conditions change, so is it necessary to amend legislation to take care of those changing conditions.
As a result of the congestion of wheat, we feel that advances against grain are essential. The minister claims that support for that can be reckoned as a criticism of the wheat board. Well, if that argument holds water, then the government's action in making a proposal to make loans to the farmers against their grain on the farm would also have to be considered as a criticism of the wheat board, and the government's suggestion to pay storage charges would also have to be considered as a criticism of the wheat board. As I say, the whole charge is ridiculous. As conditions change, so will legislation have to be passed to take care of those changing conditions.
Before dealing specifically with wheat, I wish to make a few comments on general agricultural policy. In the past, our three main points in that regard have been that there is a need for adequate support prices. First of all, the government should maintain adequate support prices on all farm products. Second, there is need for an expansion of markets, both in the domestic field and in the export field. Third, there is need for an allrisk crop insurance program.
The justification for the first of those points has been emphasized time and again in this
The Address-Mr. Quelch house by members of this group and members of other opposition parties. From time to time we have emphasized the fact that in the post-war years, as a result of government policies, farmers were compelled to accept for their farm products prices that were less than world market prices. In consequence of that, the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mackenzie King, stated that since farmers were being compelled to accept less than world market prices to maintain the price ceiling, the government would maintain a floor under agricultural prices after the war as part of a general stabilization program. Therefore, when the farmers ask for supporl prices today they are not asking for a handout in any shape or form; they are merely asking that the government live up to their promises and because the farmers have already paid for these support prices by accepting considerably less than world market prices during the war and in the post-wai years. Those policies cost the farmers oi Canada many hundreds of millions of dollars So far, all that has been spent on support prices is a sum in the neighbourhood of $2( million. It is true that another $60 million odd was paid in regard to foot-and-moutt disease, but that has nothing to do with support prices. It was paid to deal with ar emergency of the day. Therefore, we fee that the farmers are fully justified in askin| for adequate support prices today. Well the government did keep faith to a certain extent by passing the Agricultural Price! Support Act.
I have always supported the Agricultura Prices Support Act. I think it is a good act My only criticism would be that the govern ment does not make as good use of that ac as it should. Secondly, some of those suppor prices are not as high as they should b under the government's own formula. Unde the government's formula they use 1943-44-4 as the base year. According to the agricul tural prices support board, some of the sup port prices today are not as high as the; should be on the basis of that formula, quoted figures in the house last year t prove that point, and I do not wish to tak the time to deal with them now.
The method of applying support price may vary, of course. We in this group hav suggested from time to time that they shout be applied through a two-price system, i two-price system can be fully justified an' it cannot be regarded as a hardship upon an class of society. It is just as well to recogniz
308	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch the fact, that the secondary industries have been using the two-price system for years. When a secondary industry sets prices, if sets a price in the domestic market at a level that will return it a fair profit. So far as exports are concerned, it sells at the best price it can receive, and on many occasions the price the secondary industry receives for its exports will actually be less than the price at which it sells at home. That is especially true of farm machinery.
The two-price system simply means this. Farm products consumed in Canada would be paid for at parity prices as defined in the Agricultural Prices Support Act. To the extent that they are surplus, those surpluses would be exported abroad and sold at the best price that could be obtained, preferably by an international agreement, but supported by a reasonable floor to protect the farmer against a complete collapse of the market and guarantee him at least the cost of production.
At this time I am very glad to congratulate the C.C.F. on changing their policy in regard to this question. It will be remembered that last year they criticized me quite severely for advocating a two-price system. They said that they would not support it because they would not take anything less than 100 per cent parity. But already in this debate a couple of their members have supported it.
[ for one will not criticize them; in fact I should like to congratulate them upon their :hange of policy. I suggest that as long as they keep their policy parallel to ours they vill not be liable to make a mistake.
I know there are some who say-I think ;he hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) ;ook this stand last year-that it would not je fair to the Canadian consumer to charge lim more than was being charged to people n other countries. In the first place, if the 'armers were asking a support price which vould give them an exorbitant return I would igree with the hon. member 100 per cent, flfhat is the farmer asking for? He is asking or a parity price based upon the Agricultural 'rices Support Act. What does that act guar-tntee? That act guarantees to the farmer a mice that will bear a fair relationship to he prices of other commodities and to wages, s anyone in this house going to argue that he farmers of Canada are not entitled to i price that bears a fair relationship to the irices of other commodities or to wages paid n other industries? Surely no one would uggest that the farmer should have to accept ess than that, especially when he has paid


already for that protection by subsidizing the Canadian consumer in the post-war years, and our allies as well. Our farmers have paid for that protection and they are fully entitled to receive it.
In so far as the export price is concerned, by all means let the farmer receive parity if that is possible; but we in Canada have no control over the price that may be obtained for goods we ship to other countries. We can only try to get the best price we can. But on the other hand we can control the prices of commodities sold in this country.
We have had this very peculiar situation in the past. Approximately 94 per cent of farm products, apart from wheat, are consumed in Canada with 6 per cent being exported abroad. In the past we have allowed that 6 per cent that is exported abroad to dominate the price for the 94 per cent consumed in Canada. Is there any sense or reason behind a policy of that kind? The secondary industries do not stand for such a policy and it is high time that we recognized the farmer's right to a parity price for the percentage of his production which is consumed in this country.
There is nothing in the two-price system that would prevent the government from distributing surpluses to needy people in this country, to underprivileged people. Yesterday the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Yuill) suggested that it might be possible to give some of our surplus butter to old age pensioners, disabled people, blind persons or those receiving some form of social welfare payment. We have advocated that in the past, and have also referred to what was done in the United States during the pre-war days with their stamp plan. Under that plan people receiving social welfare payments received different coloured stamps for different farm products which were surplus. Those stamps entitled them to extra quantities of those commodities with every purchase they made. A similar plan could be used in this country for disposing of butter to old age pensioners, disabled persons or any group of people in the lower income brackets. As I say, the adoption of the two-price system would not interfere in any way with such a program.
We in this group have consistently supported the wheat board as the 100 per cent marketing agency for wheat. In my opinion the wheat board have done a magnificent job in the face of most difficult circumstances. On the other hand, the wheat board are often blamed for government policy for which they are not responsible in any way, shape or form. For instance, they were blamed on many occasions for selling our wheat at less

than the world market price under the British wheat agreement. They were blamed for subsidizing the Canadian consumer by selling wheat at less than the price of class 2 wheat. That was not a policy of the wheat board, it was a government policy which the wheat board had to carry out.
The price received last year for wheat of $1.56 per bushel was altogether too low. It is interesting to note that a parity price on wheat last year, using the base period of the agricultural prices support board, that is 1943-44-45, according to the bureau of statistics would have been $2.27 per bushel. The farmer actually received $1.56. I think the actual price was around $1.70, but the rest of it went into storage charges.
Of course, the farmer did not get the $1.56 because out of that transportation charges had to be paid. Then again, that was for No. 1 wheat, whereas a large percentage of the wheat was 3, 4, 5 and 6. I would say that the average price received by the farmer would be nearer $1 than $1.56. I know of many farmers who are selling their low grade wheat today for around 75 cents per bushel.
Perhaps I should not publicize that fact, but it is something that is generally known. They owe the machine companies as well as other business concerns. A businessman may make a deal between a farmer and a feeder up in Edmonton or Calgary to sell his wheat. The businessman gets his debt paid, the feeder gets the wheat, and the farmer sells it for around 75 cents a bushel. The balance goes to pay the trucking charges from the farm to the feeder. Provided the deal is made directly between the farmer and the feeder I do not think there is any breach of the wheat board act, but if the businessman actually entered into a contract there would be a breach. As long as he merely acts as a go-between I imagine there is no violation.
If we had a two-price system in operation, what would be the effect upon the price of wheat? I am not sure of the exact figures, but we will say that approximately 20 per cent of our wheat is consumed in Canada with 80 per cent being exported abroad. According to the bureau of statistics the parity price for No. 1 on the 1943-45 base would be $2.27 per bushel. Twenty per cent at $2.27 and 80 per cent we will say at the average of the high and low under the international wheat agreement, which would be $1.70 per bushel, would give an over-all support price of $1.81 per bushel.
I mentioned that figure when I spoke in the house last spring and I was interested to note that about three months later when the
The Address-Mr. Quelch United States announced their new support price it was set at $1.81 per bushel. I am not suggesting that there is any connection between those two prices; it was purely accidental, but it was interesting to note that when we were working on the support price we arrived at exactly the same figure at which the United States arrived later on.
A price of $1.81 per bushel is still well below a parity price of $2.27, but I think generally speaking the farmers would be quite satisfied to receive a support price of $1.81 per bushel. There is no support price under wheat today. Some people get confused on this subject and say that there is a support price of $1.40 per bushel. There is no support price of $1.40 per bushel. There is all the difference in the world between an initial payment of $1.40 and a support price.
A support price is for the purpose of preventing the price falling below a certain figure. What is an initial payment? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) explained to this house what an initial payment was. He said that it could not be set early in the year because they had to be sure that the price of wheat would not fall below a certain figure before the initial payment could be set because the taxpayers of this country should not be called upon to subsidize the Canadian farmer. So they set the initial payment at a figure sufficiently low to make sure that there will be no loss. How can you possibly call that a support price?
I should like to turn from that to the question of surpluses. It is interesting to note that Mr. Hambridge, who is the F.A.O. representative for North America, when he spoke before the Senate last year, referred to the fact that at the present time over half the people of the world are hungry. No doubt many members have read the speech he made before the Senate. He painted a black picture. In view of that picture, we in this group do not agree that the solution to the problem of surpluses is a reduction in production. Surely the solution must be to find new ways of getting surplus goods to the people in need. I am not suggesting for one minute that it is any easy problem to solve. But that is the problem that has to be solved. Reducing production in the face of want is not the solution.
It is also interesting to note that under the international policies of the Bretton Woods agreement and the Geneva trade agreements we have not been able to solve that problem on an international level. As a matter of fact, world markets would have collapsed long before this if it had not been for the intervention of the United States, if it had not
310	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch been for the fact that the United States brought down lend-lease during the war, under which it abolished the dollar sign entirely and made goods available to other nations in return for payment in kind. In other words, it was a form of deferred barter. Then the United States made large loans to foreign nations. Canada also made loans. Then the United States introduced Marshall aid. Members of the government have time and again praised the United States for the program of Marshall aid, under which the United States made dollars available to foreign nations to buy its surplus goods. Hundreds of millions of dollars made available under the Marshall plan were also used to buy Canadian surplus goods. We praised the United States for that policy because it was helping to solve our problem. In 1950 a committee of experts was set up by the director general of the F.A.O. to make recommendations upon ways and means of getting rid of the surplus commodities to the nations that needed them. The six experts appointed to that committee made a recommendation for an international commodity clearing house. Unfortunately that plan was rejected by the members of F.A.O. at a conference held in Rome. It became evident that from then on, as before, each individual nation would have to be responsible for the disposal of its Dwn surpluses.
If I remember rightly, the Minister of Agriculture at that time stated that Canada would look after its own surplus. What the minister should have said was that the farmers would look after their own surplus. It is the farmers, not the government, who have had to look after the surplus, except in the case of butter. The wheat farmers have had to stand the full cost of carrying the surpluses. When the proposal for an international commodity clearing house was rejected, the United States government got busy finding ways and means af disposing of its surpluses. The interesting point to note is that the United States then adopted a policy very similar in part to the proposals contained under the international commodity clearing house proposal. The United States proposed to make its surpluses available for foreign inconvertible currencies. The United States proposed to make its surpluses available under barter. The United States proposed to make its surpluses available as gifts.
I recall that at the time that was first men-;ioned in the house the Minister of Trade and Commerce pooh-poohed the idea. He said re knew of no nation that would be willing :o buy Canadian surpluses in return for their currency. Now the minister is complaining


because the United States is selling so many of its surplus commodities on that basis and he is afraid they will be disposing of more and more commodities by that means. Yet two years ago the minister tried to laugh off the suggestion as being very inconsequential.
Now in the United States the government supports the price of wheat at a very substantial level. It advances the price of wheat to the farmer while the wheat is still on the farm and pays all carrying charges on that wheat. Compare that with the policy in Canada. In Canada we place the full burden on the farmer. There is no support price. As I have already pointed out, the interim payment is not a support price. There is no advance on grain on the farm. But the farmer has to carry the whole burden himself. The farmer has to pay all the carrying charges on the wheat. There is quite a difference between our policy and that of the U.S.A.
But that is not all. Not only does the government refuse to accept its responsibilities in dealing with the surplus of wheat, but it then criticizes other nations that are helping their farmers. Canada is in the position of being the only nation in the world that is not helping the farmers by supporting the price of wheat. The government criticizes the other nations for subsidizing their wheat producers and suggests that all other nations should quit doing that and follow the same policy as Canada. Let me quote what was said by our delegate at the international wheat conference, as reported in the Calgary Herald of October 27, 1955:
Canada today warned the international wheat conference here that there will be market disturbances as long as heavy domestic subsidies are paid.
W. C. McNamara, acting leader of the Canadian delegation, said frankly that "too many" countries represented at the conference follow domestic wheat policies which add to the difficulties of exporting countries.
Further on he said:
"In particular", he said, "there will continue to be market disturbances, more or less serious, so long as wheat production continues to be subsidized as heavily as it is in many countries of the world today, both importing and exporting."
He then turned to the position of Canada's own wheat producers.
Mark this. He is giving this wide publicity:
"I would remind the delegates that in Canada world wheat prices are domestic prices. The Canadian producer of wheat has not been, and is not being, subsidized."
He told all the other nations of the world that Canada is doing nothing for its wheat farmers in so far as prices are concerned. He criticized them for protecting the wheat growers and suggested that they should stop doing so and get into line with Canada.

This reminds me of the rookie private who says that everybody is out of step but him and wants everybody else to get in step with him. Instead of Canada expecting all other nations of the world to cut off their support of agriculture and do the same as it is doing, I suggest it is time Canada got into line with other nations and supported its farmers as they are entitled to be supported. As an example of what other nations are doing, I might quote the figures given by the Wheat Pool Budget last year:
The government of the United States guarantees farmers $2.24 a bushel for what wheat they market, in Argentina the figure is $2.72 a bushel, in Australia $1.55, in Great Britain $2.22, in West Germany $2.72, in Japan $2.53, in Greece $2.45, in France $2.95, in Sweden $2.28, in Belgium $2.49, in Turkey $2.28, and in Spain $2.72.
In Canada there is nothing, except an interim payment of $1.40 a bushel. What is Canada doing? Instead of realizing it is time it got into line with other nations, it asks other nations to stop helping their farmers and do the same as it does, which is absolutely nothing.
The minister has referred once more to sterling. I do not wish to take very much time in dealing with the question of sterling, but I was amused when he tried to bring in Gresham's law. He tried to apply Gresham's law to the acceptance of foreign currency. What is he really doing when he does that? The minister has the gall to say that all currencies except Canadian currency are bad. That is what he is saying when he applies Gresham's law to the acceptance of foreign currency. I would point out that the currencies of many nations today have a higher purchasing power in their respective countries than Canadian dollars have in Canada.
Then we had a very interesting statement by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore). He quoted an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press to try to prove that acceptance of sterling would not be of any help. I suggest to the hon. member for Vegreville that he read the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the day before. What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce say? He warned members against taking any notice of any statement contained in the Winnipeg Free Press because he said the Winnipeg Free Press is against the wheat board and any statement they make is designed undermine the wheat board.
I can quite believe that the Winnipeg Free Press would be very much opposed to Canada accepting sterling if they thought it was going to help sales by the Canadian wheat board. Naturally they would oppose the acceptance of sterling. The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned the fact that Mr. Gordon
The Address-Mr. Quelch Bowen of the United Kingdom high commissioner's office had stated that if Canada accepted sterling it would not increase sales of wheat to Great Britain. It might not, but it might increase the sales of other farm commodities. Maybe they are buying all the wheat they can buy. It certainly might help to increase sales of wheat to other nations in the sterling area. But there again we have that very broad statement of the minister. He said "sterling". What kind of sterling? Blocked sterling? Inconvertible sterling?
I can quite agree that Britain would not be interested in Canada accepting blocked sterling if it were blocked so that it could not be spent in Britain, could not be converted and had to be held until such time as convertibility of currency becomes an accomplished fact. Naturally Britain would be opposed to that because it would be just postponing the evil day when that blocked currency would become a demand upon United States dollars. But on the other hand if the proposal is to accept inconvertible currency which will not be converted into dollars but which will be used to buy British goods then I am satisfied that Britain would be quite prepared to support a policy of that kind.
I say that for this reason. Time and again in this country the United Kingdom high commissioner has stated that if Canada will buy more goods from the United Kingdom the United Kingdom will buy more goods from Canada. He has pointed out that Canada has had a large favourable balance of trade with the United Kingdom for a number of years and that as long as that situation continues the United Kingdom will not be in a position to expand its purchases in Canada.
That being the case, all Canada would have to do would be to accept inconvertible currency, use that currency to buy British goods and bring about a greater balance of trade between the two nations. The Minister of Trade and Commerce among others has said that if we are going to accept sterling and then spend it in Britain that is no different from accepting dollars. Let me point out that there is all the difference in the world. If you accept sterling and spend it in Britain you are providing a market for British goods. If you accept dollars and then use those dollars to buy goods in the United States then you are not providing a market for British goods. You are creating difficulties in international payments for the United Kingdom. That, of course, would be a different situation entirely.
My time is running on but I should like to make brief reference to a number of resolutions that were passed in my constituency. In October I received a long distance call
312	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch telling me there was to be a conference of representatives of farmers, businessmen, farm organizations and all other interested parties in the western part of the constituency to discuss the wheat situation and I was invited to go to the meeting at which resolutions were to be drawn up to be presented to a mass meeting the following day. I went to the conference and there was quite a large attendance.
A number of resolutions were drafted and the following day a mass meeting was called at which the resolutions were presented. Let me point out that it was not a political meeting in any shape or form. I was not on the platform. There were representatives there from all political parties and it was a very large meeting. I only got into the discussion when people in the crowd asked me to deal with some of the points in the resolutions that were presented to the conference. The first resolution presented reads as follows:
Be it resolved that we ask the federal government to provide for advances to farmers against grain stored on the farms up to half the value of at least 8 bushels per cultivated acreage; and also provide that these advances be recovered by a deduction of approximately 50 per cent of the proceeds of each load delivered.
There was a very prolonged discussion of that resolution and I thought the discussion was most reasonable. First of all, strong opposition was expressed to any form of a loan. They did not want any interest charge made at all. It was pointed out that most of the farmers are already quite heavily in debt with respect to the wheat on their farms and that it would not help them to add another debt to what they already owe. They wanted advances which would help them to pay off some of the debts they have already incurred.
Second, they realized it would not be advisable for the advances to be too large because if the advance was on too big a percentage basis it would require fairly detailed inspection to make sure the farmers had enough wheat to cover the advances. Therefore they put the advance at a very moderate level. First of all they said the advance should be up to 50 per cent of the probable delivery for that year. Then some farmer said, "Well, we have no guarantee there will be any delivery. There might only be a delivery of 2 bushels to the acre, so that is no good." Then they based it upon what the delivery was last year, 8 bushels per cultivated acre, and suggested that the advance should be up to 50 per cent of a minimum of 8 bushels per cultivated acre. I think all members will agree that is quite a reasonable demand. That resolution was passed and forwarded to the federal government.


The second resolution reads as follows:
Whereas at the time the member nations of the FAO rejected the recommendations for the establishment of an international commodity clearing house it was agreed that each nation should be responsible for carrying its own surplus; and
Whereas it is in the national interest that a substantial reserve of wheat be maintained at all times;
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the Canadian government to assume the responsibility for carrying charges on all grain in storage at the end of each crop year.
I am very glad to see that the federal government is bringing down legislation this session which goes quite far in the direction advocated by this resolution. That being the case, I will not take time to argue the justification for the resolution being passed. The third resolution reads as follows:
Be It resolved that Canada continue to work towards the establishment of some form of an international commodity clearing house for the disposal of surplus food to needy nations;
Be it further resolved that until that goal is reached we urge the federal government to take the necessary action to move surplus food to nations unable to obtain all they require through the normal channels of trade, by such means as acceptance of foreign currencies and barter agreements and in the cases of extreme distress by gifts.
In that regard it was felt that we might very well follow the lead of the United States. They were doing that and the meeting felt that Canada might very well follow suit. They figured that the fact the United States was steadily expanding their disposal of surplus commodities through a program of that kind would suggest that Canada could do likewise, but they emphasized the fact that the whole endeavour of the government should be toward the establishment of some form of international commodity clearing house so that this question could be dealt with on an international basis rather than a purely national one. This resolution carried unanimously.
The fourth resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed in an endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns of agriculture and those from other producers; and
Whereas grains were excluded from the products covered by the act;
Therefore be it resolved that we ask the federal government to amend the act so as to cover cereal grain.
As I have already pointed out, they have always strongly supported the Agricultural Prices Support Act, but the act has never included grains. Yet at the end of the war when the price of grains was controlled the prime minister at that time promised that after the war support prices would be placed

under farm products to make up for the losses suffered as a result of the farmers being compelled to sell for less than world market prices. The government maintained good faith with the farmers in so far as all farm products are concerned except grains, but grain was not brought in under the Agricultural Prices Support Act and there is no support under grains today. This resolution therefore merely asks that grains should be brought in under the operation of the Agricultural Prices Support Act, it also carried unanimously.
In closing I should just like to point out that Canada is today lagging far behind what a number of other nations are doing in order to safeguard the efficient operation of their grain growers. Whilst farmers with strong reserves may be able to carry on without too much difficulty, the majority are under a severe strain and in many cases are being obliged to give up their farming operations. I believe that the resolutions and policies to which I have referred would help to put the grain growers on a sound basis. In the meantime we intend to support the subamendment put forward by the C.C.F.
(Translation):


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, 5,000 divorces are granted in Canada every year, that is one divorce for 25 marriages. In the two provinces which refuse divorce, Newfoundland and Quebec, parliament-according to figures which have been provided to me by the divorce committee- has, between 1950 and 1954, granted 1,512 divorces and refused only 14.	1,487 of these
divorces were granted to Quebec residents.
For some time now a powerful campaign has been carried out in this country with a view to obtaining the enlarging of legal grounds for divorce.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I feel it necessary to return to this matter and to sound the alarm in relation to a situation which is assuming the proportions of a national scandal. I wish to underline a few facts, to reaffirm a few moral and legal principles and to seek out the one acceptable constitutional issue to this predicament.
Divorce is an infringement upon natural law, it sacrifices the child who is the main object of marriage, it disrupts the family, which is the very basis of society and withers society itself by sacrificing the commonweal to personal interests. Moreover, all Catholics and several Protestant denominations are opposed to divorce, which makes it contrary
The Address-Mr. Girard to the religious principles of the vast majority of Canadian citizens.
Considered inadequately by the courts and by parliament, it furthermore puts members in an ambiguous position and confronts them with a delicate constitutional problem.
From the point of view of nature, marriage is an institution the primary purpose of which is to insure the propagation of the human race. It is a contract which cannot be of temporary duration because it is bound by a permanent tie which is the child. So, divorce denies this primary purpose of marriage because it sacrifices the child in splitting the family, the foundation of our society.
People are rightly concerned about communism because it attacks the rights of man but, on the other hand, they allow the multiplication of divorce which destroys man at his very source. We know once more how man can be utterly illogical when we find that those countries which worry the most about a falling birth rate are also the ones to encourage divorce the most. In Canada we clamour for immigration to increase our population, and we empty our cradles through divorce.
Not only does divorce make for selfishness on the part of the parents to the prejudice of the children, but it prevents children from being born. Yes, because it is made easy since it is legal, divorce prompts parents to limit the obstacle children would be to their eventual separation. The possiblity of divorce tempts our young people to consider matrimony as a temporary adventure.
Unless he wants to reduce the human race to a level lower than that of the beasts, no right-thinking man will deny that the first end of marriage is the child and that this same child is the certain victim of divorce.
This would amount to admitting that, owing to its nature, divorce destroys our human society and favours the personal interest of husbands and wives to the prejudice of the common weal. To claim that divorce is useful to society is to recognize the priority of the individual welfare of a few people over the general welfare of society, or the priority of selfishness and sexuality over the renewal of the human race. In those divorce cases that are brought before parliament the main victims of this social plague, that is the children, have never been able to claim their rights. The generally admitted motive for divorce being adultery, parliament does not consider their case. Children have been called as witnesses for or against their parents, without any consideration being given to their own case while the sexual experiences of their parents were related before the committee.

The Address-Mr. Girard
Speaking of divorce as a social evil, Mr. Theodore Roosevelt wrote in an article entitled "The Scourge of Divorce in the United States":
A scourge for any country, easy divorce is a curse to society, a menace to the family, an invitation to marital unhappiness and a practice fatal to men and particularly to women.
It was not a Catholic who spoke that way, but the leader of a nation that deemed it advisable to facilitate divorce for all sorts of pretexts, a nation that is unsuccessfully fighting a cancerous growth, the progress of which it cannot stop. They granted divorce in the name of freedom, but they have always reaped licentiousness.
The very existence of divorce seems to establish a new principle, namely that by contracting marriage human beings become angels on earth, infallible beings, because means have been devised enabling them to free themselves from their oath at the slightest disagreement.
Not only is divorce a national scandal giving a respectable status to short-lived love affairs but it deals a serious blow to the religious principles of all Roman Catholics and of numerous Protestant denominations in this country.
To those who believe that constant assaults will shake our will to resist I repeat that true Roman Catholics will never compromise on divorce.
By her unshakable determination to fight divorce the Catholic church is not led by stubbornness or harshness; she merely respects the will of Him who built our human society; she is protecting the creative work of God and the natural right of people. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that our parliament is dealing with divorce, even as an exception through private bills, puts the Catholic members in an unbearable and unjust situation. I know that these divorce cases are a source of annoyance for all members. I know also that some throw the whole responsibility for this situation on Roman Catholics since these bills come to parliament because divorce is not recognized in our province. I point out to them, Mr. Speaker, that we are not responsible for these divorce cases; we reject them and will never accept a situation resulting from the very fact that some men want to divide what God has united.
Moreover, any citizen imbued with moral responsibility and real concern for the common weal cannot, whatever his religious beliefs may be, find any social advantage in divorce. One has but to open one's eyes and to look at what history teaches us. In the United States, where easy divorce has laid a great nation open to ridicule, civil and religious authorities are seriously concerned
IMr. Girard.]
with the consequences of this national scandal which undermines the strength of the nation. Thousands upon thousands of testimonies have pointed to the evil consequences of this scourge.
I will restrict myself to only one of these testimonies, one which summarizes the whole situation in a few words. I will quote a statement from Mr. John Fitzgerald, dean of the faculty of law at Loyola University, as reported in a release from the information service of the Canadian Catholic conference, bulletin number 45, February 1955 issue.
Mr. Fitzgerald said that, since 1867 (statistics in that field date back to that year), the population of the United States has increased in a proportion of 1 to 4 whereas divorces have increased in a proportion of 1 to 60. From 1930 to 1948, one divorce has been granted for every five marriages in the United States.
The dean of the law school lays some blame on lawyers and judges, but mainly on the judicial setting in which divorce cases are heard.
He claims that there is a tragic difference between the divorce legislation and the procedure followed in fact. Actually, divorce cases go uncontested and are settled amicably between the parties in a proportion of 80 to 90%. He adds that, according to estimates from the lawyers, there is perjury in 75% of the cases. Often, hearings take only a quarter of an hour or less and the facts at issue are not examined at all.
And what happens in Canada? In an article entitled "Court of Broken Dreams", at page 34 of the March 1955 issue of Liberty, the author, one of the magazine's reporters, writes:
(Text):
I sat in on a courtroom recently in an attempt to understand why 5,000 Canadian couples annually crack up their marriages in a divorce process of mud-slinging, name-calling and money-wrangling.
I wanted to find out why our divorce rate has risen to a point where one out of every 25 Canadian marriages winds up a divorce washout.
(Translation):
Would you like to know how divorces are granted in Canada? Let me turn, not to the testimony of a Roman Catholic preacher, but to the Divorce Reform Association of Toronto, which published a manifesto urging that the legal causes of divorce be extended. Here is the first paragraph:
(Text):
Did you know that there is divorce by consent in Canada? One judge has said that nine out of ten cases before him are collusive, that is, the parties have perjured themselves in order to get a divorce.
(Translation) :
Would it be that justice itself recognizes that out of the 5,000 divorces granted each year, there are 4,500 common law cohabitations, legalized through perjury?

Quebec and Newfoundland are the only provinces that do not recognize divorce. In Quebec, the civil code, which derives its official status from the Confederation Act itself, recognizes in section 185 that marriage cannot be dissolved. Therefore, the federal government cannot and will never be able to establish a divorce court for petitions emanating from Quebec, because it would be contrary to the terms of the confederation act and against the statutes of our Quebec civil code. It is for that reason that, in order to obtain divorce from parliament, citizens of Quebec and Newfoundland must resort, to a private bill, a special law, and exclusive privilege. It must be admitted that the distinction is not illusory, since that procedure respects our civil code, safeguards the principle of the indissolubility of marriage, and prevents the setting up of divorce courts for the people of Quebec. However, one must not stop there, because although up to now the principle of the indissolubility of marriage has been safeguarded, have marriages themselves been saved? Has the rate of divorce been decreased to the extent expected, as a result of this necessity of resorting to private bills to obtain a degree?
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, between 1950 and 1954 alone, Canadian parliament has recommended the granting of 1,512 divorces and rejected 14 petitions. And out of that number, 1,487 exceptional privileges were granted to citizens of the province of Quebec whose civil code recognizes the indissolubility of marriage.
Is that not a fantastic average? Should we not fear that the repetition of such exceptions will threaten the general rule, especially when it is known that, for our Anglo-Saxon fellow-citizens, the accumulation of precedents frequently acquires the strength of law?
Everyone admits that parliament has neither the competence nor the means to pass proper judgment on the cases submitted. For that matter, the courts hardly seem to do better, as is apparent from the opinion quoted above on the percentage of perjuries.
There have been instances of divorces being granted by parliament in 12 minutes! After being studied by the Senate, with its inadequate facilities, and adopted by the parliamentary committee following a mere reading of the case, they are usually passed by the house wholesale. To grant a divorce parliament is generally content with proof of adultery. This proof is based on the rather dubious testimony of the private detectives who have prepared the case. Those detectives, whose testimony disrupts marriages, are often young men with no legal responsibilities, who earn a small salary to carry out their
The Address-Mr. Girard foul business. All members of the committee genuinely feel that in most cases there is collusion. But how can it be proved?
Last year, in this house, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) whether in the last ten years his department had prosecuted any of the parties in divorce cases for collusion. The minister replied that there was no record of any prosecution of this kind in the files of his department. Were the children wronged by disrupted marriages never taken into account? Divorces have been granted to persons in the absence of their marriage partner. Everyone knows that in Montreal, as in all large cities, there are detective agencies which, for a price, can build up evidence of adultery. From the figures I have given, it is easy to see that divorces are almost always a foregone conclusion in Ottawa.
Of course, parliament could be more severe in its examination of the cases but, on the other hand, I am not ready to blame it entirely for this, because the only means at its disposal for getting truth is the oath. When magistrates of the courts themselves recognize that there is perjury in the majority of cases brought before them, how can members of parliament or senators be expected to do better when there is collusion to commit perjury between witnesses? The error was first made when parliament entered the field of divorce, a field in which it will always be the loser in its struggle against passions. In short, even through the allegedly more difficult method of the private bill, hundreds of divorces are granted each year to the citizens of two provinces where divorce is banned.
The only conclusion possible is that this situation must be remedied because parliament is unfit and inefficient when it comes to hearing divorce cases, even though it is constitutionally authorized to deal with them.
The C.C.F. party, through many of its members, has for many years expressed alarm at parliament's readiness to grant divorces. But the solution it proposes is, in short, that divorce cases be sent to the Exchequer Court. This solution reminds me of the flood victim who would drain his cellar into that of his neighbour.
We will never agree to the principle thal those cases be referred to a court of justice for that would be in actual fact a denial oi the indissolubility of marriage, which is protected by section 185 of the Quebec civi code. So there is only one alternative, Mr Speaker. It was set forth in this house 2E years ago, in 1930, by a great French-Canadian statesman, Mr. Henri Bou-rassa.
316	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Girard
He suggested that the constitution be amended and that the question of divorce be referred to each of the provinces who would dispose of it at their discretion. Bourassa claimed that the matter should be referred to the provinces because the federal government was not able to exert the authority constitutionally attributed to it in this respect.
I can very well imagine the main objection to this solution which, for some people, would mean refusing the privilege of divorce to the non-Catholic population of Quebec.
As long as it has not been proved that divorce is a beneficial institution promoting common welfare, nobody will have the right to ask for the abolition of section 185 of our civil code. Anyhow, it is not a question of choosing the laws of one's country or province. I would be first to ask for the abolition of taxes if I were entitled to reject a law that is not favouring my personal interest.
At the federal-provincial conference of 1950, Mr. Bourassa's suggestion was brought up again by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, in a brief submitted to the attorneys general of Canada, and seconded by the representatives of three other provinces, those of New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which would bring up to five the number of provinces who would adopt this solution. When that proposal was submitted in 1930 by Mr. Bourassa, it was approved by the Divorce Reform League of British Columbia and by the Marriage and Divorce Reform Association of Toronto.
There would be no change in the position of the provinces that accept divorce, but this solution would have the advantage of putting an end to a situation which Quebec and Newfoundland cannot tolerate and it would also free parliament from a situation which is equally unbearable.
Since this entails an amendment to the constitution, which cannot be done without the consent of the provinces, I urge the government to call a federal-provincial conference without delay, and seek means of bringing about that amendment to our constitution.
The reasons put forth by Mr. Bourassa 25 years ago to obtain that amendment to the constitution, at a time when less than 100 divorces were granted each year, have become even more pressing if we consider that parliament now receives nearly 500 applications for divorce each year.
Unless the government hastily adopts the cnly acceptable solution, it will soon be overwhelmed by the rising flood of easy divorces.


Soon, divorces will be granted for incompatibility, the most futile and the most fallacious of pretexts.
This serious problem must be solved before it is too late, for divorce, which some would like to make still easier, is becoming a legalized form of free love and is gradually undermining the vital strength of the nation.
(Text):


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address my remarks to the subamendment which is now before us, and to indicate the attitude that I believe will be expressed by the members of the party to which I belong.
The subamendment that is before us asks that the following words be added to the amendment which we have already introduced:
.	.	. including their failure to provide cash
advances on farm-stored grain, equal to not less than 75 per cent of the initial price, to alleviate the serious financial crisis now confronting western farmers and the entire economy of the prairie provinces . . .
As has already been indicated by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), we would have moved this as part of our amendment had we not wished to leave the way clear to put an amendment of this kind before hon. members on the motion to go into supply. I explained at the time that I was speaking in the debate earlier that we were moving a broad amendment without going into detail so that we would not subsequently limit the opportunity to present an amendment upon which all hon. members would be called to express their opinion. I regret very much that by the introduction of this subamendment it is likely that we shall be unable to introduce an amendment on going into supply which would call for a direct vote on that one question by all hon. members without anyone being given an opportunity to say that he had voted against it for some other reason than that contained in the words themselves.
I should like very much to have had the opportunity to present an amendment calling for cash advances so that every hon. member on the other side as well as on this side would have been called upon to vote on that question and that question alone.
As I indicated earlier in my remarks in this debate, we refrained from introducing detailed amendments of that kind because of our desire that we should not preclude the possibility of offering an opportunity at a later time during this session for a clear and unequivocal vote on this and other subjects which will arise. However, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)

has chosen to introduce this subamendment. That is his right. The subamendment is before us. I wish to indicate the course that we propose to follow. I do not think the subamendment is drawn as well as it could have been. Nevertheless, the course is clear. The intention of this subamendment is to call for an expression of opinion in regard to the desirability of cash advances to meet the serious financial crisis now confronting western farmers and the entire economy of the prairie provinces.
In moving this subamendment, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar placed no new issue before the house. We made it abundantly clear, without any reservation, that we favoured the principle of cash advances on farm-stored grain; nor did we simply state that at the beginning of this debate. In December of 1952 I asked in this house that legislation be introduced without delay to make it possible to provide for cash advances on farm-stored grain. Since then, we have continued to urge that legislation of this kind be made available. Therefore, the purpose of this subamendment is one which we have placed before the house, and one which we have stated publicly elsewhere on frequent occasions. The only question which arises is one of actual wording, and we are not going to haggle over words when the principle is clear.
It would have been much better if, after the words "not less than 75 per cent of the initial price", these words had been added, "on a reasonable quota basis." I prefer to believe, however, that the subamendment intends that.
The payment on a quota basis has become an accepted practice. In fact, it has become such an accepted practice that the book on which the payments are made is commonly described as a quota book. Therefore, I think it is reasonable for us to assume that in the drafting of this subamendment the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had in mind the requests which have been made by representative farm organizations, and in fact the proposal that we have made over and over again, long before this came out in the house this session, that there be a cash advancement on a reasonable quota, having regard to the general quota arrangements which have been made for the past several years. Since that is the situation and since that is what I consider to be a reasonable interpretation of these words, we intend to support this subamendment because it does express the request that consideration be given to the demand for the very thing we have been asking for, for several years.
The Address-Mr. Drew
I repeat-and I must repeat-I regret very much that by following this course hon. members to our left have perhaps denied the opportunity to have a clear vote on this one question by a substantive amendment when we go into supply at some later time.
I do not intend to make any extended remarks on this subject today, but I do intend to refer to one statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) during his remarks on January 16. He told this house in effect that if the plan of cash advances on farm stored grain went into effect the four members of the wheat board would be out of office within a matter of days.
Surely this is a new procedure. I should think it is an abnormal exaggeration, even for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it would have to go very far to qualify for that description, but let us see just what this means. It has been a long established practice, going back for centuries, for ministers of the crown to announce in certain cases that Her Majesty's representative has approved of the subject matter about to be discussed. Obviously we are now to have a new-practice. Apparently, in matters of this kind, instead of the approval of His Excellency as the representative of Her Majesty, in future we will be told that officials have approved of the measure we are called upon to discuss.
That is bureaucracy carried to a degree which we have not yet contemplated. That is bureaucracy carried to the point of being an affront to every member of parliament. We are told without apology that officials would resign if members of this parliament decided that a certain type of amendment should be made to legislation for which they are responsible. I hesitate to believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has any support for such a statement. I prefer to believe that it is an abnormal exaggeration even for him.
Perhaps this is another case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I would be inclined to think that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was perhaps very surprised when he heard that we were now being told when we could or could not do things in this house according to the pleasure of officials in various government agencies set up by the authority of this parliament.
We have complained before about bureaucracy. Unless that statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was utter humbug there is an apology due to the members of this house for an implied threat that certain public officials would not continue to do their job if we did ours.

The Address-Mr. D. Gourd


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a free country; they can resign if they wish.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say that this is a free country. I hope it will continue to be a free country and I hope this will continue to be a free parliament. I hope that we shall no longer have any suggestions of this kind. We have had enough arrogance from ministers without having arrogance from public servants. This is a subject which calls for further explanation and there is still time in this debate for an explanation to be given as to the authority upon which that statement was made.
In so far as the amendment and the subamendment are concerned, it is my understanding that a vote is to be taken today in accordance with the new rules. I would hope that on that vote there might be some hon. members who would recognize that the first vote, which will be on the subamendment, will be on the primary question of whether there is approval of the principle of making cash advances on farm-stored grain. I would hope that that would be the accepted position. I would hope that very much. I should like some hon. members opposite to express their opinions by way of vote and to indicate their support of a principle which I know many of them have been supporting outside of this house.
In so far as the general subject matter of this debate is concerned, the debate will continue and presumably there will be another subamendment when I can make any further remarks that I deem to be appropriate. For the reasons I have given, it is our purpose to support this subamendment.
(Translation) :


Mr. David Gourd (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker may I be allowed to congratulate you on the flawless way in which you have been carrying out your exalted functions over the past three years. I would also like to recognize the high reputation which you enjoy through your deep knowledge of parliamentary law and your remarkable impartiality.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) for her brilliant handling of the delicate task of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Northern Ontario and the adjacent area in northwestern Quebec are rightly proud of the member for Timiskaming.
I am also happy to congratulate the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) who so ably seconded the motion. This young man cer-

tainly has a promising parliamentary future and we must congratulate the people of Bellechasse for sending to parliament a newcomer of such merit.
I heard it mentioned in the speech from the throne that, as a whole, Canada is enjoying at this time a remarkable period of prosperity. In fact, one only has to leave our beautiful country and visit other countries to see how privileged we are to be living in Canada and to enjoy so much comfort and freedom. May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to point out to our friends in the opposition that we are indebted to the wise administration of this government for this situation.
How privileged we are to have as special representatives to the great powers such extraordinary men as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who visited Soviet Russia and other countries, men like the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who has had such great influence on the decisions of the United Nations, and like our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who made a triumphant tour of the world.
Because of their competence and their skill, these statesmen have given our country an outstanding reputation and unequalled prestige abroad.
I would also like to mention the important contribution to the prosperity of Canada of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), and of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). By their efforts they have maintained the prices of our products at a very satisfactory level.
I cannot understand why the members of the opposition are so upset by the abundance of our wheat crop and of our butter production. I take the liberty of advising them not to worry too much, because the situation is much better than they would have us believe. With such an excellent administration as that of our government and with the skill of men like the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production and of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture, we have no cause for worry and, in my opinion, we are far better off with large crops than with short ones.
I would not want to forget to thank our Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) as well as his predecessor who authorized the construction of the railroad from Barraute to Chibougamau, a distance of over 200 miles, entirely within the constituency of Chapleau, which I have the honour to represent. That


IS, 1956
[Stage Direction]
railroad has already promoted considerable economic activity in that large area. Moreover, its extension into the lake St. John district will help commercial relations between the two important districts of lake St. John and Abitibi, to the mutual great advantage of both areas.
Construction of that railroad will unquestionably permit the establishment of many parishes, and promote the development of several new mines. Already, there are over 400 families and business establishments of all kinds in Chibougamau proper. In addition, the Opemiska Mining Company has' just set up a new municipality, Chapais, where no less than 125 families have settled.
Being now acquainted with these facts, and knowing that our district has a population of about 200,000, mostly farmers, you will agree, I think, that we are justified in expecting the establishment of a regional slaughter-house and cold-storage plant which would permit our settlers and our farmers to raise cattle on a larger scale and to increase their agricultural production, since their products could be marketed in an orderly way during the year, which means that our producers would enjoy a security essential to the conduct of their business.
On the industrial level, as was so well outlined by my colleague, the member for Ville-neuve constituency (Mr. Dumas), which is adjacent to the county of Chapleau, it is quite possible that a zinc smelter will be built before long in our district. I may add that I learned recently that Noranda Mines company might build a copper smelter. Moreover, in view of the boundless forests that are found in the northern part of my county, it is highly probable that a paper mill will also be built near Mattagami lake.
The construction of a new section of the railway, about 50 miles in length, from the vicinity of Beattyville up to Mattagami lake, would be warranted by this building of a paper mill.
Once these large scale projects are carried out, we will owe them to the work and unrelenting efforts of our public bodies, our industrial board, the professional organizations of our farmers and agronomists, our municipalities and our county council. I wish to congratulate them publicly, to thank them for their co-operation and to urge them to continue their work of promoting the development of this corner of northwestern Quebec so that it may become one of the most important districts and thus greatly contribute to the economic welfare of Canada.
The Address-Mr. D. Gourd
Now, Mr. Speaker, I make it a point to congratulate our able Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) for his good administration. But I have a suggestion to make in connection with national security. I have already pointed out in this house the many reasons of national interest which would justify the federal government in approaching the government of the province of Ontario to ensure completion of the road connecting Norembega in the province of Ontario and the town of La Reine, in the province of Quebec, a distance of 47 miles. I do not intend to repeat the arguments. I believe however that the dangers which threaten our country and the development of modern weapons which have justified the establishment of a network of radar stations-two of them located in my constituency-require the direct assistance of the Department of National Defence for the completion of that road and the establishment of a communication system between the two provinces.
There is another stretch of road whose construction by the Department of National Defence would undoubtedly be most necessary and urgent. This stretch would connect Casey-where the department has built a very important airport-to the radar station at Parent. It is a distance of about 25 miles where construction would be very easy; it would certainly not cost more than $15,000 per mile and would provide an outlet for the population of Parent and the surrounding area.
I wish also to take advantage of this opportunity to ask our devoted Minister of National Health and Welfare to see to it that the rate of family allowances and of the disability pension be increased.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not like to end my remarks without mentioning once again, as I have done in my previous speeches, the necessity of appointing a representative to the Vatican. As almost every other country in the world is represented there, and as everybody admits without religious or national prejudice that the Holy See is an element of unity and peace between nations, I am convinced that, for Canada, the appointment of such a representative would be a help and a contribution to the cause of universal peace.
I also submit that the government would respond to the wishes of the great majority of the Canadian people and would follow its regular Canadian policy by giving this coun-
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny try a national flag. Canada is a sovereign member of the commonwealth of British nations, under certain amendments to the British North America Act. Our supreme court is now the final judicial authority and the queen's representative in our country, the governor general, is of Canadian origin. It seems to me that the adoption of a national flag would be an addition to the development of this our great country, Canada.
(Text):
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne there is one sentence in particular to which I wish to draw the attention of this house and upon which I shall base the major part of what I have to say this evening. The sentence to which I refer reads as follows:
Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being.
The last part of that sentence, that not all parts of the economy have participated, will go down in history as the greatest understatement of all time. Even if we were only to make a summary of what we have heard in the present debate, and I am not referring entirely to speeches by members of the opposition parties, it certainly would appear that there is a large sector of our economy that has not participated in the so-called prosperity referred to in the speech from the throne. However, apparently there are some parts of the economy that have done better than previously. I have in my hand a Canadian Press clipping in which it is pointed out that corporate profits from January to September, 1955 rose to $2,236 million compared with $1,829 million a year ago. Apparently our huge corporations have been increasing their profits, but if that is the only basis on which the government can claim that we have prosperity then I must say they are giving their attention to a very small sector of the Canadian economy.
On the other hand, almost every member who has spoken about agriculture in this debate has drawn attention to the decline in income. Instead of burdening the house with any more statistics, I should like to point out briefly what is being said in my province of Manitoba by two of the farm organizations there, who between them represent pretty well all the farmers in that province, and, in addition, by the provincial government. In its submission to the commission investigating


our economic prospects the Manitoba federation of agriculture stated in the very first paragraph of their brief:
A continuation for even a year or two of recent trends in increasing costs and declining farm prices would spell disaster for agriculture in this province . . .
Then I also have a report of what was stated to the commission by the Manitoba farmers' union as found in the Manitoba Co-operator of November 17 last:
In a ten page brief accompanied by * the appendices showing the continuous increase in farmers' production costs and the continuing decline in the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat, the Manitoba farmers' union suggested to the Gordon commission that perhaps the greatest single factor in influencing present trends in agriculture "is, and has been, the policy or lack of policy on the part of governments."
In a report of the submission of the province of Manitoba, also found in the Cooperator of the same date, there is the following:
Manitoba farmers "are facing an economic squeeze that bodes ill for them in the next few years unless some drastic measures are taken to remedy it," premier D. L. Campbell told the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. He explained, "Quite frankly, I don't know what the solution is."
That is, of course, a typical Liberal analysis. That is the situation facing agriculture and that is one reason why a great part of this debate has centred upon the amendment to the amendment moved by my leader on which I understand a decision is to be taken today. I want to deal with it for a few minutes, not so much on the basis of what has already been said on this side of the house, because certainly the case for the subamendment has already been very well stated, but on the basis of what has been said in defence of the position of the government. We have had some most extraordinary speeches, and apparently the Winnipeg Free Press seems to think so too. In a leading editorial in their issue of the 17th of this month under the title, "C. D., How Could You?", they state as follows:
Mr. Howe, defending the government against attacks on its wheat policy, made an extraordinary speech in the House of Commons Monday. No doubt it had some subtle point. But such subtlety will leave plain folk in western Canada more puzzled and more dissatisfied than ever.
I am afraid it will be cold comfort to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to know that, at least in the opinion of the Winnipeg Free Press, his effort of last Monday is going to leave the farmers of the prairie provinces more dissatisfied than ever. That, Mr. Speaker, will be rather considerable because dissatisfaction and discontent with the actions of the government in the last three

or four months have reached a pitch in western Canada that I have not witnessed before in my lifetime.
There have been mass meetings and meetings of organizations. Resolutions have been passed. In fact, we are informed in the same editorial to which I have referred that even from the constituency of Rosthern two telegrams were sent, as the result of a Liberal association meeting, asking for cash advances on grain. As a matter of fact, it is one of the top issues from the lakehead to the foothills. May I say more as a warning than anything else that if the Liberal members who represent prairie constituencies do not change their attitude they may find very slim pickings from the lakehead to the foothills at the next election.
It is not only a matter of cash advances. That is only one of the issues. It happens to be the top issue today and the straw that broke the camel's back. It is the culmination of years of broken promises, years of disregard for agriculture and, perhaps even worse, disregard for the views of the farmers as expressed through their organizations.
In his address the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce took a rather astounding position when he as much as said that even though the prairie wheat pools had passed resolutions asking for cash advances, even though the Manitoba farmers' union and the farmers' unions in the other two provinces had passed resolutions asking for cash advances and even though various chambers of commerce, labour organizations and so on had done so, it did not matter. It was his opinion that they should pay no attention to all these organized bodies and should slough off the whole thing simply by saying that if the government took the advice of these organizations difficulty would arise with the officials of the wheat board. I am sure he cannot get away with that and I am sure he does not expect to.
On top of that, in one of his arguments against cash advances on farm stored grain he strongly implied that one reason it could not be done was that there was no assurance that the grain on which the advances would be made would in fact be there so that it could be delivered to repay the advances. That is an implication which I am sure will be resented by every grain grower of the western prairies. I have been in close contact with the farmers of western Canada over a period of 20 years, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been in contact with them for much longer than that, and I am sure he would not want to imply that the farmers cannot be trusted to the extent of at least 67509-21
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny 75 per cent on the grain they have. Surely the minister would not imply that the farmers would take advantage of such legislation to try to pull off some dishonest deal. There are plenty of ways to keep track of these advances. There are the grain permit books. There is the grain elevator system. There is the wheat board. The machinery is there. The question is whether or not the government are going to take the advice of the farm organizations of western Canada or whether they are going to take their own way regardless of what the people of western Canada think. As to the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last Monday, in some ways I should be pleased if enough copies of it were made so that one could be nailed on the door of every grain elevator on the prairies. It would make good reading for farmers who could come to the elevators and find there is no space for their grain.
Some of the other members on the government side of the house made their speeches in defence of government policy. I should like to refer to one made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in which he took considerable time trying to interpret what went on at the Saskatoon grain conference. It so happens that I was also present at that conference. I am afraid that the hon. member's line, in which he tried to make it appear as though what is contained in this amendment is a threat to the Canadian wheat board, is nothing more than a most ungainly attempt to hide behind the skirts of the Canadian wheat board. Certainly anyone who attended the Saskatoon grain conference did not come away with any such idea as that.
At the conference were representatives from all the main farm organizations of the three prairie provinces, two of the governments of the prairie provinces, labour organizations, chambers of commerce, and retail merchants. It was a cross-section of the opinion of the prairie west. In all of the discussions that took place there was no suggestion whatever that there was any conflict between the proposition of cash advances on farm-stored grain and the principle of the Canadian wheat board or that there was anything incompatible. Certainly the hon. member for Rosthern cannot come to this house and try to interpret the desire of that conference as being one for bank loans at 5 per cent; because if there is any one thing on which they were fairly clear, it was that they were not in favour of bank loans at an interest rate of 5 per cent and that they were in favour of cash advances.
In dealing with the question of the Canadian wheat board I was rather amazed to find that any member of the Liberal party would

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny get to his feet in this house and try to leave the impression that it was the members of this group or the members of the opposition generally who were any threat to the Canadian wheat board. When we look back over the record we find that exactly the opposite happens to be the case. For example, when the original wheat board bill was introduced in this house in 1935, if one looks back over the debates of that day he will find that it was the members of the Liberal party-who were then in opposition-who expressed some grave doubts as to whether or not they should support such a measure. As a matter of fact, in almost every case where they, spoke, they expressed the hope that it would be a temporary measure, one just for the duration of the emergency at the time, and that it would not be a permanent measure on the statute books of this country. For example, the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir)-who is one of the few members on the opposite side of the house who were present in 1935 in this house-spoke on that question on June 13, 1935. In announcing his intention to vote for the second reading of the bill he qualified it with this paragraph as reported at page 3633 of Hansard of that date:
At the same time I would hesitate very much to endorse a proposition whereby, at this stage of the game, a permanent compulsory pool organization or board should be established and set in motion to conduct the wheat marketing affairs of the country for years to come. I dislike to see the government go into the grain marketing business.
That was the position of the Liberal party at that time. If it has changed, it has been a recent conversion. The then minister of justice, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, in his speech on the same date, qualified his support for that principle in these words. After having given four qualifications, his fifth one was as follows as reported at page 3606 of Hansard of June 13, 1935:
And, fifth, I vote for this as a temporary emergency measure and not as a permanent scheme of socialistic government operations in connection with the production and distribution of wheat, especially since it is introduced in the dying days of a moribund government.
The last few words, of course, are as applicable today as they were at that time. There you have the situation where the members of the Liberal party, sitting in opposition at that time, expressed themselves firmly as not being in favour of the principle of the wheat board handling the marketing of grain as a permanent policy in this country. They would only agree to it as an emergency measure to be taken off the statute books as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact, a year later they came to power and made an attempt at least to so weaken the wheat board as to make it partially inoperative. The time in 1938 when
iMr. Zaplitny.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since the hon. member has asked for the correction, the government is advancing no money whatever to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I rather expected the
minister would say something like that because the agreement which was drawn up involves the federal government, the government of Ontario and the pipeline company. It amounts to the same thing as the government advancing approximately $85 million to a private company at an interest rate of 3 [DOT] 5 per cent. It is even worse than that, because in that same agreement there is a provision whereby the pipeline company can depreciate the pipeline at a rate of 3-5 per cent. In effect, what the pipeline company is going to have when it buys back that portion of the pipeline being built by the two governments under the agreement is an interest free loan of approximately $85 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I trust my hon. friend never gets in a position to handle government money because that type of financing would certainly wreck the country.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If the minister believes that kind of financing is not right, then he will have to revise the agreement because that is what the agreement provides.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not what the agreement provides. My hon. friend does not understand it, but I do not mind his explaining it in his own simple way.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will come to that question again. I want to continue. I merely use that as a comparison-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Better drop it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -to illustrate the different way in which the grain farmers were treated from the way in which a private company was treated at the same time.


Irvin William Studer: Wrong again.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would not advise the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) to put in his oar at this time because the kind of defence he made of the government's position in his speech the other day 67509-21J
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny should convince him that in this case silence would be indicated. The only thing he had to advocate for getting rid of our food surpluses was to eat more. He thought if everybody had all the food he could eat and put on lots of flesh our surpluses would disappear. What he seemed to forget is that there are two kinds of people in Canada. There are those who eat too much and those who eat too little. In many cases those who eat too little are not able to buy the food because of the government's stingy policy on social services.


Irvin William Studer: Haven't you got a province out there that saves all the money?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As I said earlier, this question of cash advances, in itself, is not the whole reason for the dissatisfaction amongst western farmers. It is a queston of whether the whole of agriculture in Canada, the east as well as the west, is getting a fair share of the national income. When we look at the statistics and find that 20 per cent of the population of Canada which operates agriculture is receiving less and less each year,. when we would expect them to receive 20* per cent of the national income and find, that they have slipped from about 8-5 percent down to about 7 per cent of the national income, there is the basic reason for farmers complaining about the treatment they receive from this government.
I think before this session is over this parliament will have to give serious consideration to at least three phases of our economy. Basically, if we are going to have prosperity in this country that we can talk about and not just the prosperity of a few big corporations who increased their profits, there are three things which I believe we must do. First, we must agree as a parliament on the principle of parity prices. Parity for agriculture is not only a matter of giving justice to agriculture but it is part and parcel of the future prosperity of Canada. If we so arrange our affairs, and if we have legislation which results in giving agriculture its fair share of the national income, we will find we will have accomplished perhaps the greatest single step in keeping the whole economy of the country in a buoyant state. If we allow the share of agriculture to continually decline while the costs of production remain the same or go higher, then of course we will place agriculture in this country in a position in which the farmers will not be able to buy their share of the good things produced in this country.
As a result of that we will help to create an. economic crisis in other parts of the country. It has happened before, and it would happen.

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny again very quickly. We hear arguments pro and con on the question of parity prices for agriculture. Sometimes we are told that if we attempted to establish a parity price system for agricultural products it might entail subsidies. There are those who are prepared to argue that would not be a good thing because we would have to use public money to place floors under farm products. On the other hand, when we look around our economy and stop to think of the kinds of subsidies that are being paid and have been paid over many years, I cannot see how anyone can argue that a few hundred million dollars in subsidies for agricultural products would be a wrong thing.
If we stop to think of one item alone, our tariff structure, what a terrific subsidy that is to the manufacturing concerns in this country! In the period of time during which tariffs have been operating they have been effective in draining from the pockets of the people of western Canada particularly hundreds of millions of dollars. There are other subsidies that are paid. The farmers of Canada have always been very fair, particularly the grain producers, and willing to play their part. When I hear members like the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Mac-Dougall) refer to the proposal to pay a certain part of the grain storage charges as a handout, it makes me wonder whether such a member has really studied the situation.
What is the picture? In 1946, when the war was over, the government decided to place a ceiling, not a floor, Mr. Speaker, on the price of wheat. They entered into an agreement under which there was to be a ceiling price of $1.55 a bushel. This was done at a time when we were lifting the ceilings on almost all other commodities in Canada. We were decontrolling steel, farm implements and taking the controls off farm fuels and the other things which enter into the cost of production. The government gave the farmers a proposition. They said that in order to enter into a four year agreement we must be assured a supply of wheat; we must assure Great Britain, our biggest customer, of a supply of grain at a price. The only way we can do that is by placing a floor and a ceiling on grain. At a time when we could have sold wheat at approximately $2 a bushel the farmers were asked to take $1.55 in the interests of stabilization, as it was called.
The farmers responded. They said: All right, in the interests of the over-all good of the Canadian economy, in the interests of the over-all good of the allied countries as well as Canada, we are prepared to go along and take less for our product than we could get on the ordinary market. Then, what happened?
rMr. Zaplitny.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Carrick:: Will the hon. member permit me to put a question? Before we concluded at six o'clock I understood the hon. member to say that if Trans-Canada Pipe Lines purchased the northern Ontario sector they would pay no interest. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the interpretation of the agreement contained in the release put out by the Department of Trade and Commerce on November 21, 1955 in which it was stated that if the northern

The Address-Mr. Weselak Ontario section were purchased the government would receive 31 per cent on its capital investment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I regret that my time is so short, but may I say that I am aware of what the hon. member has referred to. It is also a fact that in the interim the pipe line company is permitted to depreciate its capital at the rate of approximately 31 per cent, so the result will be the same as an interest-free loan.


Donald D. Carrick: That is not an accurate statement.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish merely to say in reference to this whole pipe line deal that in my opinion it is an improvident deal. It is an alienation of the natural resources of this country, and the activities of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in the formation of the company with which this agreement was entered into runs very close to a violation of the Combines Investigation Act. As a matter of fact I am not too sure that there was not in fact a violation. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would do his colleague a favour by looking at section 32 and also at the interpretation to make sure that the activities have not involved this government in the formation of a monopoly which is not in the interests of the public, which in fact is detrimental to public interest and therefore a violation of the act.


Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I join with other hon. members of the house in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mrs. Shipley) had the signal honour of being the first woman since confederation to move the address in reply and I am sure that the women of Canada were proud of the manner in which she acquitted herself. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) also did as well and could be considered representative of the youth of our country and his splendid speech reflected the increasing activities of the younger people of Canada in the affairs of this country which affect their present and future welfare.
This debate has progressed into its fifth day and it is almost impossible to enter the debate at this time without being repetitious. However, considering the speeches by opposition members I think one would have to go a long way to compete with them in that respect. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the speech from the throne as containing little for the people of Canada. It is true that the speech from the throne is comparatively short, but on the other hand, as the member for

Springfield, I find a great deal in it which will affect the people of my riding and be of benefit to them.
The speech opens with a reference to our international problems. It reasserts our support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of the United Nations Organization, of the Colombo plan and of the United Nations technical assistance program. With the recent change in attitude of the leaders of the communist bloc, which I do not think came as a surprise to anyone, these programs and organizations are of vital importance to us to assure our security and to provide a deterrent to aggression and communist expansion. Had we accepted the smiling diplomacy of the Russians and disposed of NATO as suggested by them, I am afraid that the consequences would be with us now and we would be reaping the harvest of our folly.
The hon. ministers of external affairs, of fisheries and of health and welfare are to be congratulated on their efforts-which in the case of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) has resulted in serious and painful injury- to find some ground by which peace could be assured in this troubled world. The efforts of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations have brought honour to Canada and are a credit to her statesmanship.
The speech also indicates that the government has been at grips with the western wheat problem, and in the proposed legislation for which it seeks the approval of parliament measures will be brought forward which will alleviate and assist the wheat growers of the west in their present difficulty.
Reference has been made in this debate to the proposal by the government to pay the carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of 178 million bushels as a form of charity.
In the course of this debate statistics have been placed on the record which do indicate that the prairie farm economy in contrast with many other sectors of the country has steadily declined. The farmers of western Canada have in the past pretty well carried their own load in spite of protective devices such as tariffs and patents which have contributed so much to the development of industry and the betterment and security of labour. The advantages obtained by tariffs and patents for the other sectors of the economy have to be paid for, and are paid for by the consumers of the country. Farmers are notably large consumers of industrial products per capita, and on a per capita basis pay a substantial portion of this cost. The farmer must buy in a market geared to our high economic level, yet must sell in competition in markets where the economic level

is much lower than that of Canada. Protection by way of tariffs and patents, though they produce revenue are nothing other than a subsidy paid for by the consumers of Canada.
It might be of interest to note some of the other subsidies paid in this country. My findings show that since 1944 $2 million was paid to the maritime potato growers; $7 million to the apple growers east and west; $6 million to butter producers in Ontario and Quebec; approximately $6 million to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia potato growers under the prices support act.
Freight rate assistance from the prairies on feed grain for the benefit of producers and feeders from 1941 to 1954 resulted in assistance to feeders:	In British Columbia
to the extent of $22,462,939.52; in Ontario, $72,191,724.89; in Quebec, $87,510,638.70; in the maritimes, $38,347,090.19; making a total of $220,512,453.30. To which should be added approximately another $14 million for 1955 making a further total of over $234 million. These are some of the subsidies paid to various sectors of the agricultural economy in an effort to raise them in some measure to our general economic level.
In addition to these agricultural subsidies, in the year 1954 alone a total of $51 million was paid in other federal subsidies. The breakdown given in a statement of national accounts of income and expenditure prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics shows that in the year 1954 $15 million was paid in gold subsidies, $11 million was paid under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, $12 million was paid on coal subventions and $13 million in miscellaneous subsidies.
I have no quarrel with the payment of the subsidies I have referred to. It is far better to temporarily assist those sectors of our economy which are temporarily depressed in this manner than it is to legislate in such a manner as to reduce the economic level of the country as a whole. In this respect our prairie farm economy has temporarily become one of the soft spots and deserves the attention and assistance which is being proposed by the government.
The principle of mutual assistance by Canadians in Canada is further exemplified by the constant efforts of our Prime Minister to finalize and complete the renewal of dominion-provincial agreements which have done so much to equitably distribute the wealth of the nation. The Winnipeg Free Press in its editorial of January 13 made no mistake when it stated:
The federal government's new tax offer to the provinces is excellent. When the history of our
The Address-Mr. Weselak times comes to be written this can be expected to rank as one of the acts of true statesmanship to the credit of Canadian Liberalism under Mr. St. Laurent's leadership. It is a major contribution to the economic and political progress of our federal system.
The revised proposals, according to the editorial, will within the general scale of federal-provincial tax dealings give Manitoba a just deal in relation to other provinces, and under the new proposals we unquestionably do get this, along with all the advantages of the existing tax rental agreements.
The construction of the trans-Canada pipe line will be welcomed by the people of Manitoba. Manitoba has been very fortunate that within the boundaries of the constituency of Springfield, which I have the honour to represent, there has been developed on the Winnipeg river 788,000 horsepower of cheap hydroelectric power. We find now we must go farther afield for power, and its production and transmission is going to be far more costly than that produced in the past. The supply of natural gas to Manitoba will provide additional source of energy which will certainly contribute to the expansion of our provincial economy.
Further amendments to the National Housing Act to make it more effective are always welcome, since any incentive to improve housing conditions in Canada will result in a healthier and happier nation. The only suggestion I have at the moment for the government, is that some study be given to reducing the income requirement for country towns, where living costs are comparatively lower. In many deserving cases, this could be lowered, instead of being set at an arbitrary figure. In these towns the local bank managers are making the advances. They are familiar with local conditions and know the circumstances of the individuals involved.
The speech from the throne indicates that parliament will be asked to increase the size of the loans to be made by the Canadian farm loan board and to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
With the increase in the size of a farm now required to establish an economic farm unit, and in the amount of capital required to reasonably equip such a farm, the increased amount available certainly will be a welcomed amendment to the act. The increase in the amount of loan available will not, however, solve the problem if the loan to value ratio is by conservative appraisals brought down to a comparatively low level. In addressing the house on February 1st last year, I pointed out that there was a need for a scheme of longterm credit for the rehabilitation of young farmers and at that time made reference to the success of the work that had been done

The Address-Mr. Weselak by the administrators of the Veterans Land Act in settling veterans on farms following the last war. I believe the Canadian farm loan board could administer a program similar to that instituted for the veterans, under which supervised long-term credit loans could be made to young deserving farmers to establish them on farms, particularly in cases where ordinary commercial credit is not available, which is the case in many of the farming districts of Canada.
The Farm Improvement Loans Act has been good legislation and has done a great deal to provide farmers with low-cost credit to enable them to equip their farms with modern labour-saving equipment, which is so necessary to them to reduce their cost of production. In our area, as in others, considerable advantage has been taken of this available credit; and it has been of great assistance, particularly to those whose farming operations are in the development or expansion stage. It is therefore quite obvious that any amendment designed to improve the operation of the act cannot help but be of further benefit to those concerned.
Amendments are also proposed to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In our area, 1954 was the first year in which the act became generally applicable. My experience during the summer months while at home, in this respect, certainly gave me an appreciation of the difficulties encountered in the administration of this legislation. In 1954 the Manitoba government, aware of the dissatisfaction in Manitoba with regard to the operation of the act in many areas, authorized the appointment of a commission to make a study of the act itself and of alternative crop insurance schemes which might possibly be used as an alternative to the present legislation. The report was submitted to the government of Manitoba on September 9, 1955, and I would recommend it to all western members for thorough study, since it contains a wealth of information not only in regard to prairie farm assistance but also in regard to the experiences of the United States federal crop insurance corporation. The report also contains the commission's views regarding the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in Manitoba and suggested amendments to the act, which no doubt have received the consideration of the government and its officials.
In the constituency of Springfield we have the Berens River, Bloodvein, Brokenhead, Fort Alexander, Hollow Water, Little Black River, Little Grand Rapids and Poplar River Indian reserves, which comprise a substantial portion of the Indian population of Manitoba. The Fort Alexander and Broken-head reserves are located at the south end
IMr. Weselak.]
of lake Winnipeg, while the others range to the north on the east side of the lake a distance of 160 miles. The two reserves at the south are located on reasonably arable land, and I believe a great deal can be done, provided financing and guidance are made available, toward agricultural development of these reserves. I understand that preliminary surveys to this end have been made and I am sure that the interest shown in our Indian population by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) will result in the closest co-operation between him and our newly appointed regional supervisor of Indian agencies to the advantage of the Indians of Manitoba. I am sure the proposed amendments to the Indian Act will be designed to facilitate the department's work in this connection and will be looked forward to with considerable interest.
Since my entry into this house, I have never made reference to the part the constituency of Springfield has played in the history of western Canada, nor of its importance to the economic welfare of Manitoba. Springfield borders on the province of Ontario north and south for a distance of 222 miles. On the west it is bounded north of the town of Selkirk by the east shore of lake Winnipeg, and south of the town of Selkirk it extends across the Red river to Stony Mountain and then skirts the city of Winnipeg and the town of Transcona. The constituency is representative of almost all occupational, ethnic and religious groups, who live and work amicably together for their common good.
On both sides of the Red river, extending from the city of Winnipeg to the town of Selkirk, are located mixed farms and large market gardens as well as other people located on small holdings and employed in the city nearby. This area is steeped in history, for here is located Lower Fort Garry, built 124 years ago, wholly intact and in an excellent state of preservation. It was in this area along the Red river that the early history of western Canada was enacted and where the story of Louis Riel began.
The central portion of the constituency is located in the Red river, Brokenhead and Whitemouth river valleys, and is one of the finest farming areas in western Canada. I say this despite the fact that in the past two years, owing to excessive moisture, we have had comparatively poor crops and the farmers in this area are at present hard pressed to meet their obligations and carry on their farming operations. This may seem an odd statement, but in 1954-and results will show that 1955 was not much better-the average wheat yield in the municipalities of Brokenhead was 9-5 bushels as against a long-term

The Address-Mr. Weselak
average of 19-7; of Lac du Bonnet 5 bushels as against a long-term average of 21-8; of Whitemouth, 5 bushels as against a longterm average of 16-8. One can readily see that they have been affected not only by price squeezes but also by drastic losses in production.
The eastern area of the constituency bordering the Ontario boundary and extending north between lake Winnipeg and Ontario is in the Precambrian shield. Through this area from the lake of the Woods to Fort Alexander on lake Winnipeg flows the mighty Winnipeg river, which has contributed so much to the economic development of Manitoba. It was along this river that the first discoverers of the west travelled to reach lake Winnipeg and then to travel south to where the city of Winnipeg is now located. On this river are located hydro plants generating 788,000 horsepower daily which supply the present needs of the province of Manitoba. On the river also is located the huge pulp and paper mill which provides employment for the communities of Pine Falls, Powerview and St. George and which also supplies winter employment to farmers in the area. This area also provides the finest fishing, hunting, swimming and boating within the areas of the two provincial reserves, namely, the Whiteshell and the Agazis.
Along the shore of the lake there is a great deal of fishing activity and fur farming. The mineral potential of this area has only been scratched. Gold has been mined for some time at Bissett. This area is rich in nickel, lithium, chromite, gold, copper, beryl and molybdenum. The Lithium Corporation of Canada, Falconbridge and Viola-mac are in the area doing development work and it will only be a matter of time until this area becomes a very important factor in our mineral production.
The problem of surplus wheat stocks has received in this debate a considerable amount of attention, and the opposition have made every attempt to lay the blame for this situation at the feet of the government. The minister and other speakers on the government side of the house have placed on the record facts and figures which show that in spite of ever-increasing difficulties Canada has retained and maintained the bulk of her markets. These speakers have shown that the situation is not an isolated Canadian problem but is a world problem which has developed as a result of several factors over which the government has no control. The first of these is within the country itself. It is the fact that Providence has been good to us and has given us bountiful crops which 67509-22
have resulted in greater quantities being made available for export consistently over a period of years. The second is the fact that crops throughout the world also have been good and that production as a result of subsidization by governments has had the effect of increasing production in traditionally importing countries, thus reducing their requirements and also making more wheat available for export in this country.
In an address to the Manitoba pool elevators at Winnipeg on October 28, Mr. Graham Spry, agent-general for Saskatchewan in the United Kingdom and Europe, a recognized authority on the problem, stated that the prairie wheat problem was not created in the west but is part of the world wheat situation. He went on to explain that it was not Canadian policy which had created this situation. Canadian farm policy, he explained, was stability at a price level which covered the cost of production and met fair and sensible competition. Fair and sensible competition, he said, does not exist and our Canadian wheat is being marketed in a world of production incentives and trade restrictions which have disturbed our normal markets.
In addition, the change in status of the United States from a marginal small exporter to the status of the largest wheat exporter of the world has further disrupted our trade in traditional markets. He described the Canadian wheat policy as the least artificial, the most sane in any country. These remarks were made with the thought that only a meeting of minds at the international level and a return to sane, sound and economic wheat policies throughout the world would solve this vexing problem which is facing the world today.
Previous speakers on this side of the house have placed on the record figures covering production, marketing and export which show that had we had normal production years there would have been no surplus. The solutions suggested by the opposition have been acceptance of sterling and soft currency, barter, giveaways and credit sales, and finally a more aggressive sales policy.
On the question of accepting sterling and soft currency I would refer the house first to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press headed, "Duping the Farmer", which reads in part as follows:
The most important of these is the one that Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan fastened on once again in a speech on Wednesday night. It is that Canada should take "payment" for wheat in foreign currencies-particularly in sterling-where sales cannot otherwise be made. This idea makes a certain superficial appeal. That is why it has been around for a long time. But in the form in

The Address-Mr. Weselak which it is usually put forward it is simply a deception a smart-aleck idea from people who ought to know better and care more about the farmer. There is of course no difficulty whatever about taking in return for wheat or anything else, sterling or any other currency. The question is what we can do with the sterling when we have it. The Canadian farmer does not want pound notes. He wants dollars or goods.
The proponents of "sterling sales" talk as if we could get goods in exchange. That is untrue- not by wish of ours, but by obvious wish of the British or anyone else, in their own interests. If, having taken sterling, we are then allowed to spend the sterling on buying goods for Canada, or on making foreign investments that appeal to Canadians, then from the point of view of the United Kingdom they might just as well have paid us in dollars in the first place.
I would refer also to a statement made in Winnipeg before the farmers' union convention by Mr. W. G. Coventry, United Kingdom trade commissioner. In the issue of the Winnipeg Free Press of December 6, 1955, there is the following report with respect to what he had to say:
In an address to the Manitoba farmers' union fifth annual convention in Winnipeg and in a later questioning period, W. G. Coventry, United Kingdom trade commissioner, explained why these much advocated policies were not economically reasonable. But the speaker did suggest two practices which he said would stimulate movement of Canadian commodities into foreign markets.
The article goes on to say:
Canada could not sell more wheat to Britain, or to other countries, by accepting sterling, Mr. Coventry said, because it was only "payment deferred". The account would have to be settled with the Bank of Canada later. "You will never get the Bank of England to allow purchase in Canada for sterling", he added. The eventual need to settle with the Bank of Canada would be "a threat hanging over its head". By the same token, no other country would pay for Canadian goods with their own currency.
Giveaway programs were all right at times, Mr. Coventry said. They were better than "destroying the produce". But the British had "a dogged pride" and would not accept a bushel of free Canadian wheat. Mr. Coventry said he did not feel barter agreements were profitable because they called for specific orders to manufacturers to produce goods, specially designed for the other country in the agreement.
With regard to credit sales, sales on credit have been made to Poland, Brazil and Yugoslavia through the medium of the export credit corporation for substantial quantities of grain, and I am sure that should credit be required by any country it will be similarly made available.
With respect to giveaways, I might say that perhaps the United States can afford this luxury but I do not believe we can. In 18 months their giveaway program has cost the United States $1,692 million. To bring this giveaway program into its proper perspective, I think we must recognize that we in Canada export approximately 75 per cent of our wheat production and consume at

home approximately 25 per cent. The United States, on the other hand, consumes within their own country approximately 80 per cent of the wheat production and exports a small surplus of 20 per cent. The United States is in much the same position as we are with our butter.
We must also recognize that in Canada any giveaway program of the scale entered into by the United States would have to be paid for by a mere 16 million people compared with the population in the United States of over 160 million. The funds available to the United States government for this purpose can be indicated by the fact that this year's budget in the United States will be in excess of $68 billion while ours is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 billion. '
I think these comparisons should be kept in mind when we suggest that our wheat surpluses be disposed of completely by giveaway programs. I have no objection to the giving away of wheat to countries which require it and are in need, but I do not think we should disrupt world markets by entering into a war with the United States in this respect. An example of the type of deal entered into by the United States under this program is illustrated by the fact that an agreement was entered into by the United States last October with Japan to provide Japan with $170 million worth of farm products over and above her usual imports. In the deal made with Japan the United States is to accept local currency. Thirty per cent of this local currency is to be held in Japan and used by the United States for offshore installations, military housing, exchange students and to develop United States markets in Japan. The remaining 70 per cent would be used by Japan for the erection of hydro stations, the development of agriculture and the promotion of a Japanese productivity centre. Not a cent of this money will return to the United States. It is nothing but a dead giveaway program. Similar deals have been made by the United States with Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Egypt, Israel and Yugoslavia. The result of the United States program has been that while her average exports before the war were roughly 56 million bushels, she now exports in excess of 300 million bushels. These deals are bound to affect and to be reflected in our Canadian exports.
What are some of the things that our government has done to meet this situation? During this parliament the Canadian government entered into an agreement with Japan. It is a reciprocal trade agreement which gave Japan certain concessions and under which Japan also undertook to purchase certain

commodities in this country. For a year or two, as the result of that agreement, we had a splendid market with Japan. We had a very good market and our exports to Japan rose to high levels. But since the United States have entered into their disposal program-and you can hardly blame Japan for this when you consider the deals I have just related-our exports with Japan have decreased. In the long run I believe Japan will be a valuable market of ours but our exports to Japan have been reduced. The Canadian wheat board has been pressing sales by inviting trade delegations from various countries with whom we deal in order to acquaint them with our method of handling growing and shipping our Canadian grain which is the best grain in the world and which has created standards which are acceptable the world over. The wheat board has also worked in our interests by appearances before official bodies in the United States to protect the interests of the Canadian grain producer. Finally, the wheat board has taken a realistic approach in the matter of grain pricing. Where necessary and where it has been advantageous they have reduced the price of grain and have refused to be panicked into a price war. I think the statement of the minister to the effect that orders are coming in at a rate exceeding that of last year certainly justifies this stand on the part of our Canadian wheat board.
The Canadian government itself has twice recently sent delegations to the United States to discuss this problem and to try to arrive at an amicable solution. I understand that a further conference is arranged for the latter part of January to discuss the problem once more. Finally, our adherence to and support of the principle of the Geneva agreement on tariffs and trade is one of the things which is doing a great deal to preserve our markets throughout the world. I feel satisfied that the wheat board and the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have left no stone unturned to promote sales. As I said before, his statement to the effect that orders are coming in at a fairly good rate certainly seems to justify our confidence in our Canadian marketing policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express to the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the appreciation of westerners for the investment announced last June to be made in western Canada in the amount of $650,000 for the erection of a rust research and science building on the campus of the University of Manitoba. If conditions are favourable to rust, losses on 67509-22i
The Address-Mr. McBain the prairies can exceed $1 billion in an individual crop year. The rust research laboratory in Manitoba over the years has kept pace with the appearance of new races of this scavenger. Anything that can be done to facilitate this work is a sound investment. I am sure our eminent scientists in Manitoba will welcome the building which will no doubt improve their working conditions and increase their efficiency.


Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to add my congratulations to those that have already been extended to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I perhaps feel a little bit more justified than would many other members in this house in extending those congratulations to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) as it was in the riding that I have the honour to represent that the hon. member first saw the light of day and gained her early education. I would assume that her desire to serve in the municipal field was gained from the fact that her father for many years served as councillor and reeve of the township in which I happen to reside. As to the youthful member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), I was pleased to see him taking an active part in the deliberations of this house.
I wish to turn my thoughts to a few of the problems that face the people engaged in making their living in agriculture. These problems are extremely difficult ones and they face many people in the country. The problems I wish to discuss are possibly more directly the problems of Ontario farmers, although indirectly they concern all the farmers of Canada.
The yearly net income of Ontario farmers has dropped more than $1,000 per farm since 1951. Much of this drop has been the result of the cost-price squeeze in agricultural production. To recover lost income as well as to improve long-term earnings is the prime concern of most farm operators. The question is h-o-w. I may come to the other one later. By how much and how fast can the goal of improved earnings be attained? There are many standards for measuring the success of farm operations. Some may consider a farmer to be a success if he has a beautiful homestead, has well-bred livestock or if his family have a standard of living comparable to that of other dwellers; if they have inside plumbing and a good motor car; and he need not be criticized if it happens to be a Buick or something better. But how is he going to maintain

The Address-Mr. McBain the standard of living he deserves with the agricultural outlook of 1956 staring him in the face?
Other hon. members have spoken on the butter and the cheese situation and on the situation with regard to wheat and other cereal grains. If we are going to sell our surplus butter behind the iron curtain for 20 cents a pound or more below the floor price and not give the consumers of Canada an opportunity to purchase this storage butter at the same price as that at which it is now being sold to these communistic countries, it would appear to me that something is seriously wrong in the administration of this government and in the handling of our surplus butter.
Let us look at the pork situation. The forecast as predicted by the marketing service of the Canadian Department of Agriculture has this to say:
For the first quarter of 1956, the increase is forecast to be 5 per cent over the first quarter of 1955 and for the second and third quarters of 1956, a decrease of 3 per cent is looked for, based on surveys of breedings and farrowings. The increase forecast for the next six to nine months would scarcely supply the natural increase in population if the rate of pork consumption on the domestic market remains about the same as during 1955, and exports continue as in the past year.
It is to be hoped that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) maintains the present floor price on hogs because this forecast of marketings shows that farmers do not see hogs as a profitable business and present breedings are light. It is estimated that around 40 per cent of the population of Canada depends directly or indirectly on agriculture. Therefore, if agriculture continues in a depressed condition it can readily be seen how rapidly this would reflect on the other 60 per cent of the population.
How are the farmers overcoming this high cost of production? I think the farmers as a whole are appreciative of the assistance they have received from the agricultural colleges, the agricultural experimental farms, plant breeders and all of those connected with the science of agriculture. In Ontario I wish to give credit to the Ontario soil and crop improvement association for the outstanding work they have done in the last 15 years in assisting farmers to produce higher yields on the same acreages. Agriculturally speaking, the year 1955 will not be a particularly pleasant one to remember. Farmers can look forward to the year 1956 with less farm workers, higher priced land and less money with which to buy costly equipment. There is a challenge requiring all our mental, manual, scientific and financial resources.
Modern farm practices have resulted in higher yields per acre for the last 10 years.
(Mr. McBain.]
Those yields have been the highest in any 10-year period in the history of Canada. The biggest increases have occurred since 1950. Present day know-how can still increase the production per acre provided the farmer has a market for the products he produces. How far and how fast yield increases can be continued will depend on the returns farmers might reasonably expect for the hours of labour it takes to produce the product. I sincerely suggest, Mr. Speaker, to this government that they give more serious consideration to the difficulties of the agricultural producers than they have in previous years.
(Translation) :


Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, at the outset, to extend my sincere congratulations to my hon. colleagues for Timiskaming and Bellechasse (Mrs. Shipley and Mr. Laflamme) for their excellent speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The reason I rise tonight is to refer to the federal-provincial conference on health insurance projects which is to be held January 23.
The numerous representations made to us by the public, the personal commentaries of doctors and medical bodies, the large amount of data compiled by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the legislation passed by the present government at the time of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King to prepare a health program in 1948 and the additional credits voted since then are excellent groundwork to the study of a national health insurance plan. As far back as 1935, the Bennett government had created a survey commission to investigate the problem of health insurance in Canada. It may be recalled that the scheme submitted at that time had been declared ultra vires.
In 1937 the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission included suggestions with regard to health and health insurance in Canada.
In February, 1942, the Mackenzie King government instituted an advisory committee on health insurance and, in March, 1943, that body submitted a draft bill to the social security committee of the house. In 1943, the parliamentary committee on social security approved the general principles of the bill, but proposed some amendments which went through in 1944. In 1945, the Hon. Brooke Claxton suggested to the federal-provincial conference held at that time a

national health insurance scheme whereby the federal government would pay 60 per cent of the cost, and the provinces 40 per cent.
On May 14, 1948, the Right Hon.' W. L. Mackenzie King announced a national health scheme entailing an annual expenditure of approximately $35 million up to a total of $167 million.
In 1953, an additional amount was provided until 1958, bringing the grand total to $386 million, to be expended over a period of ten years, from 1948 to 1958.
As a result of that preliminary plan, about
46,000	beds have been added in hospitals for the care of adults, together with several thousand beds for children, not to mention the many spheres in which the government provided subsidies for sanatoriums, for tuberculosis control and so forth, all necessary elements in the implementation of a national health program.
At the federal-provincial conference of last October, and following the preliminary talks of April 1955, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a proposal involving support of a national health insurance plan provided it did not require constitutional amendments, and provided that the majority of the provinces and of the people were in favour of the scheme.
The necessity to provide for a health insurance plan is a result of two very important factors. First there is the obligation to maintain the standard of health in Canada. But in view of the vastness of our country, and of the special characteristics of its various areas, the government must step in at all levels to ensure medical care to the whole population. The second factor comes from the tremendous rise in the cost of medical care and hospitalization, which again requires government assistance if we don't want more and more of our people to be deprived of adequate medical care. Thus, a medical board connected with army recruiting and entrusted with preserving and organizing medical care for the whole of Canada, made some remarks concerning the extent of our territory and the difficulty of providing medical care for everybody.
At a forum organized by this committee throughout Canada, a citizen of Bury, I think, in the province of Quebec, said: "We have here with us two undertakers and no doctors, so we can die when we please." Over the radio, another one from Lennoxville
The Address-Mr. Breton stated: "All of us dread doctors and hospitals, knowing that many of us have spent a lifetime paying for the costs of a couple of operations or of protracted illness." These twc statements summed up the comments which had been made throughout the country.
It is for these reasons that the government must help. Already, in some parts of Canada, several provincial governments have adopted legislation to help the public through compulsory health insurance.
British Columbia, for instance, has a compulsory health and hospital insurance plan Alberta and Saskatchewan likewise have plans whereby the public is obliged to contribute to the costs of health insurance.
British Columbia has a general hospitalization service covering all hospital costs, excluding medical costs. A 5 per cent sales tas serves to pay the cost of the program.
Alberta has a municipal hospitalizatior plan and a provincial plan for maternity cancer and polio cases. Municipal plans are financed by means of a local land tax anc provincial subsidies. The provincial plan is financed through the general revenue of the province. One hundred and seventy-three municipalities of Alberta, involving 93 pei cent of the population, contribute to a compulsory insurance plan.
Saskatchewan has set up a compulsorj hospitalization insurance plan for the entire province. This plan covers hospital costs, drugs, laboratory costs and operating-room costs. This insurance is financed by means ol an annual tax of $10 per capita to a maximum of $30 per family. In addition, Saskatchewar is trying out a regional compulsory medical and hospital insurance plan in Swift Current In 1953, 20,400 families were covered by this complete medical, dental and hospital protection plan. In 1954, the annual tax amounted to $18 for a single person and could reach a maximum of $44 for a family of four oi more. This is a personal as well as land tax. It will be recalled that a referendum was held in Swift Current a few months age in which a farm population in general voted against the establishment of a system oi compulsory insurance, which, of course, forced the local government to revamp its policy in the matter of health insurance.
The province of Newfoundland has what is called a voluntary hospitalization insurance plan, known as the Cottage hospital plan. Hospitals are made up of 18 cottages
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Breton :omprising 503 beds for adults and 113 beds for children. The cost of this compulsory insurance varies from $7.50 to $18 for single persons, according to localities and from $15 ,o $36 per family, also according to localities served.
In the rest of Canada there is no compulsory insurance for the time being, although he province of Ontario has just stated that it vas necessary to organize an insurance sys-;em, apparently compulsory, which would [DOT]equire the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. This means that >ur people are more than ever ready to try lut the plans being carried out in certain provinces and in other countries. Thanks to he experience gained in the world, particu-arly in England, Sweden and France, people ire getting more and more convinced that, for he protection of the public and the attain-nent of a higher standard of health in this ountry, a national system of compulsory nsurance must be adopted.
As early as 1942-43, an inquiry committee et up by the federal government showed hat 32 countries had a compulsory health nsurance system. On the other hand, nine ountries had a voluntary insurance plan, rnong them Sweden, which, in my opinion, is ne of the most advanced countries from the oint of view of social legislation. Around 942 the president of the Canadian Medical association, Dr. McPhedran, who was also member of the medical investigating com-nittee, stated that the tendency of medical cience was to specialization, because general ractitioners are unable to earn an adequate icome without resorting to surgery, and that ny system of medical organization should, rst and foremost, be based on preventive ledieine. What Dr. McPhedran said in 1943 i even truer in 1956.
It is quite interesting to note the present sndency of medicine in this country. For istance, in 1954, 73-7 per cent of Canadian octors practised in communities of 10,000 eople or more. In the province of Quebec, lore particularly, this proportion was 77-6 er cent, and a little above that, which means aat only 22 per cent of physicians practise in ities of less than 10,000 population. Furthermore, the tendency to specialization rat began several years ago is gaining mo-lentum. Indeed, in 1954, only 43 * 2 per cent f doctors in Canada were general practi-oners, although the proportion did not ex-eed 38 [DOT] 7 per cent in the province of Quebec,


whereas in 1948 the percentage of general practitioners in our province was 47-9. The reason for this, according to a doctor friend of ming, is that preventive medicine is altogether unprofitable for the physician. The necessity of earning a living is driving doctors to hospital service where they command substantial fees. The ordinary physician does not dare send his patients to a hospital for a medical examination that might well cost them $200 and even $300, and would not be covered by some insurance scheme. On the other hand, whereas a hospital examination today is costly, a consultation by the family doctor only brings him $2 or $3. Therefore, Dr. McPhedran was perfectly right in stating that health insurance should first of all be based on preventive medicine.
In 1956 as in 1943, doctors naturally tend to establish themselves where they can more readily specialize either in surgery or some other branch. Doctors fear that health insurance will ultimately protect only hospitals and specialists and afford no protection to the public at large or to the family doctor. We must therefore organize health insurance plans that would enable them to make reasonable profits through the practice of their profession without having to take up surgery or some other specialty.
Many people come in to see us-I am sure that all hon. members have received the visit of some of their constituents who showed them fantastic bills for hospital and medical care. Only a few days ago a postmaster who earns but $150 a month was telling me that he had paid out $7,000 for hospital treatment, operations, fees and medical care for his son. It is not surprising that these people should come to us to request assistance from the government. They say outright that they cannot bear this expense.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it normal that, in a country like ours with well organized medical services-there is one doctor for 983 people, that is 16,000 in all in Canada-half the population should be unable or unwilling to go to hospital.
We have, particularly in the province of Quebec, a system of public assistance which, to my mind, is altogether inadequate and is a real disgrace, especially to the patient who has to beg for charity when he is under public care.
In 1952 the public hospitals of the province of Quebec took in 52,326 charity cases.

The provincial and municipal governments paid about $7.00 a day for these patients, while in 1954 hospital expenses in Quebec rose to $10.26 per capita, which means that our hospitals had to carry a daily deficit of $3.26 for each public patient. This kind of patient remained an average of 19 days in hospital, while private patients, who were obliged to pay their own way, only stayed about 10 days. Therefore, public patients now get 19 days paid, and those of average means must carry the burden of the deficit. These are the people who, when they call on us, show us hospital bills that might be called utterly fantastic.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for a concentrated action by the governments in the field of health insurance. People criticize the English scheme, which in 1953 cost 486 million pounds sterling for 48 million people; yet this insurance, which covers dental expenses, medical expenses at home, drugs, hearing aids, all hospitalization costs, diagnosis and doctors' fees and even capital investment for the building of hospitals and their maintenance, cost only $28 per head, whereas our own medical costs are much higher and cover only a small part of our 'medical needs. If a critical comparison is made between the English and the Canadian systems, the conclusion is not in favour of our system.
France, which attaches great importance to public health, has a system of preventive medicine. Every French citizen has a health booklet and has to undergo at least four complete medical examinations during his lifetime. These examinations include laboratory tests and X-ray inspections which are free, in that they are paid for by the insurance plan.
There are now in Canada 17 non-profit health insurance companies, such as the Blue Cross, which offer group insurance.
In addition, some 60 private companies specialize in health insurance. Unfortunately, in the province of Quebec, no insurance company offers to individuals the advantages of group plans as in Ontario. In Ontario, the Blue Cross is the only company offering to pay the full cost of hospitalization; there is only one limitation to that insurance, that is 120 days in hospital.
There are at present in Canada 4,300,000 people who have insurance policies in various companies or non-profit organizations.
The Address-Mr. Breton
Needless to say that the figure is impressive at first glance, but one must also consider that those insurance plans are divided into two categories.
There is the extensive plan which is called in English the "Comprehensive Plan" and there is the limited plan. The comprehensive plan includes medical and hospital care and covers a fairly large field; the limited plan offers some kinds of hospital or medical care as provided in the policy.
There is an untold number of insurance policies which are absolutely illusory and which are sold by companies not much concerned with the interest of the patient. Here is an example of an insurance costing $40 for a family of three people. A child of a subscriber was involved in an automobile accident. The cost of treatment of a fractured leg was $500. The insurance company paid $60 to cover all expenses. When I think of the millions of insurance policies which are drawn up this way, I can say that this protection is fictitious. I could mention an impressive number of such cases.
In the province of Quebec only 35,000 people are protected by comprehensive plans such as that offered by the Blue Cross. I am aware that some workers are covered by excellent group insurance plans but these, unfortunately, only protect a part of the population. That is why I have nothing against group insurance plans which are of great service to a large number of Canadians.
Personally I am opposed to a compulsory insurance plan for Quebec since I am still a believer in the virtues of private enterprise, as long as in the field of health insurance, it is assisted and controlled by the governments.
If we consider Canada's infantile mortality rate, we cannot say that we are living in the best country in the world. Canada ranks thirteenth among the countries of the world in the matter of infantile mortality. The rate of Canada's infantile mortality is 38 per
1,000,	but in Quebec it is 50 per 1,000. This province's mortality rate among pregnant women is higher than elsewhere. Its mortality rate from tuberculosis is too high. We have much to do if we want to improve public health. If we want our people to benefit from medicine, we have to put medicine within their reach. I do not think that doctors are opposed to a plan of health insurance; quite
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Breton the contrary is true. But doctors in general believe that preventive medicine would bring them absolutely no revenue, if they are not effectively protected by insurance plans.
In all insurance companies, there is nothing at present which permits protection against disease or maintaining a person in good health.
Someone had this witty remark one day about medicine in the Orient: it seems, he said, that over there the doctor is paid to keep his client in good health and that he has to attend him for nothing when he is sick. That may seem paradoxical, but what could be more logical after all?
If we examine the health problem in Canada, due to the immense size of our country, we must conclude that governments have to act. I know that the federal government has been working for a number of years on the preparation of a program which will permit every citizen of this country to participate in an insurance program that can protect them.
I repeat that in the province of Quebec I do not believe that a compulsory contributory insurance system would be practical. There is a big difference between compulsory insurance and a program of protection for the public. That is why I would like our province to co-operate with the federal government, which is ready to pay the larger part of the costs, 60 per cent, with the provinces paying 40 per cent. I believe that in order to ensure medical care, the better part of the public is willing to insure through insurance companies, without any necessity for coercion. We must allow people to buy protection from insurance companies as individuals at reasonable rates without having to belong to a group. These insurance companies should be allowed to band together and to carry the main load themselves, especially as regards hospital and medical costs. The federal government should ensure that policies be uniform. As you know, at this time a great many insurance policies are sold by agents on commission. In certain cases these policies are sold to people in good health but are cancelled by the companies as soon as the insured party falls sick. If insurance companies agreed to be integrated in a global plan, I believe that the provinces, with the help of the federal government, could pay the costs of preventive medicine, of diagnosis, laboratories and analyses and also assume, as suggested by Premier Frost at the last conference, the costs of hospitalization after a period of 50 days.


The protracted illness is what many people are afraid of. A good number of people can afford the cost of 15, 20, 30 and even 40 days of hospitalization. But when it comes to chronic disease, they are absolutely helpless and these people are definitely ruined and in final analysis, become dependent on the government. That is summed up in the following statement made by the Lennoxville farmer on the occasion of the forum I spoke of a while ago. "We are all afraid of hospitals and doctors because we know that one or two operations or even a protracted illness will put us in debt for years to come".
I wish to draw a few conclusions before closing these few remarks in French. We could talk at great length on health insurance as there is so much literature on this matter. Once you delve into this problem, you can find literally tons of documents in the Department of National Health and Welfare, which proves that the government has had the matter under active consideration for years. If the problem has not yet been solved, it is because it is very complicated.
There is certainly much to do to set up a health program in Canada. Whether such a program be compulsory or not, it still remains that the provinces should organize a system that could be integrated into a national health insurance scheme. I am confident that the present government will co-operate in that direction as the Prime Minister has given to understand.
To conclude, I would like to summarize the four main points of my remarks-I made them as they came to my mind, and there may have been some overlapping of the ideas I put forth.
1.	Health insurance must encourage and organize preventive medicine which so far has not been the case; this is, moreover, in accordance with the recommendation of medical associations;
2.	The ordinary physician must be reasonably compensated for his services and especially for preventive medicine care which he is called upon to practise more and more if he wants to conform with the spirit of medicine;
3.	National health insurance is not necessarily compulsory insurance. Voluntary plans integrated into provincial legislation may be very useful;
4.	The formula of public assistance, such as is now implemented, is unfair to needy

people as well as to the middle class which, under the present system, must pay prohibitive hospital costs.
In closing, may I say that a complete national plan of health insurance would require the payment of unemployment benefits to unemployed people when they are sick. I know that this might require a constitutional amendment, a problem which would be solved at the next federal provincial conference which will open this coming January 23. It would be good to broach this problem. If we really want to deal with the problem of health and health insurance, we must also guarantee unemployment benefits to the head of a family when he is sick. True it is that he gets benefits at present but only if he is sick while unemployed. All that would be required would be to state that illness is a cause of involuntary unemployment.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to repeat in English what I have already said in French on the problem of health insurance in Canada. However, I should like to sum up this subject by saying that, according to the declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at the federal-provincial conference of October 1955, the federal government is in favour of helping the provinces in promoting a national health insurance plan.
Personally, I am not favourable to a compulsory health insurance plan in the province of Quebec. It is my opinion that each province should organize at its own choice either a compulsory or an optional insurance plan, provided it can be integrated in a national plan.
We already have 17 non-profit insurance schemes in Canada and about 60 private corporations offering insurance plans throughout the country. It seems to me that these private corporations could institute a plan which could be integrated in a provincial scheme by co-ordinating their plans with those of the provinces.
There is no doubt that the average person cannot pay $40 to $50, which amounts approximately to $200 a year for a family of four people, to be protected against the risk of sickness. I believe, however, it would be possible to have a comprehensive insurance plan by which the private societies could bear the bulk of expenses, the provinces providing part of these expenses by paying
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough the cost of diagnosis and laboratory examinations along with the hospitalization cost for sickness over 50 days, as was proposed by the Hon. Mr. Frost.
I may add, because I forgot to point this out when I spoke in French, that the costs connected with the treatment of sickness are rising very rapidly in our country and are reaching the point where they exceed the capacity of the patient to pay them. In 1945 these costs were ascertained to be about $21 a year per head. At the conference of last October they were estimated to be about $38 per head, and Mr. Frost estimated these costs to be $44 a year per head. The cost of caring for the insane amounts to an additional $8 or $10 per head. Therefore we are obliged to consider that for full protection of people against sickness it would cost about $50 pei head a year. That means about $200 for a family of four persons. There is no doubt tha1 the ordinary people of Canada are unable tc carry these costs of sickness. That is why I am in favour of a national health insurance plan
It is impossible for me in these few words to cover all the arguments in favour of a national health insurance plan but I should not like to resume my seat without congratulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on the considerable amount of preliminary work he has accomplished to date in the field of health insurance in order to round out the differenl social security programs which are so vital to the welfare of the people of Canada.
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain)
Mr. Speaker, the only true way I can express my feelings in entering this debate is to saj that they are feelings of anger and deep concern over the attitude of the governmenl with respect to the issue before parliament The C.C.F. have moved a vote of non-confidence in the government on the basis of the treatment being meted out to our westerr farmers and the fact that the governmenl have done nothing about the urgent anc serious problems facing not only westerr Canada but, indeed, the whole agricultural economy of this country.
The C.C.F. are asking that there shall be paid to the farmers cash advances on farrr stored grain of not less than 75 per cent o] the initial price in order to alleviate the serious financial crisis now confronting westerr farmers. First of all, may I say I am quite disappointed that western members of parliament of the Liberal party have, in my opin ion, failed to put before the house the true aspects of the situation prevailing in tha part of the country. I am truly disappointed
338	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough that the hon. member tor Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang), the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison), yes, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have not seen fit to get up in the house during this debate and place before hon. members the true situation respecting the plight of western farmers.
I say it is not sufficient for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who is in his seat at the present time, to try to intimidate any western member, the farmers or the farm organizations so far as their support of the wheat board is concerned. I challenge the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in his seat, to bring before the house an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to bring rye and flax under the control of the Canadian wheat board. I guarantee him that every last member of this party will support it.
I say too, to the hon. member for Rosthern that he cannot intimidate the farmers of western Canada. The hon. member has a right to his own opinions but I feel that for many years he has been doing the same thing he did in 1945 when there was a discussion before the house with respect to the taxation of co-operatives. I recall well, as will all hon. members who were in the house at that time, that in his formidable and emphatic way he asked himself the question how he should vote. The hon. member for Rosthern oad his hand raised in an emphatic gesture. He said, "I ask myself the question", and m hon. member sitting in front of me replied md said, "You will get a foolish answer."
[ think the hon. member for Rosthern has oeen getting foolish answers down through ;he years.
I say to him that I do not think he will ind one farm organization in western Canada which does not support the Canadian wheat Doard. I say too that he will not find a western farm organization which does not ;upport cash advances, interest free, to west-:rn farmers. The hon. member for Swift "urrent-MapIe Creek (Mr. Studer) spoke in ;his debate but from what I heard him say it would seem the only solution he has to offer o solve the glut of wheat we have in the :ountry is that people should eat more. I ;uggest that is comparable to the reply of (farie Antoinette of France when the authori-ies said to her that the populace did not lave bread and she answered, "Let them eat :ake".
The western farmer today is in the worst :ash position he has ever been in. Speaking rom personal experience, because I have armed for some 20 years, I have never seen


the western farmer in as difficult a cash position as he is at the present time. I have been lucky in my farming down through the years, and through good luck, good health and a host of friends I have achieved a reasonable amount of success. However, I say to the government that they have betrayed many young men who came back from the forces in 1945 and took up farming. They have betrayed them because they took off price controls in 1946 and 1947, and since that time the price of agricultural implements has risen by leaps and bounds.
What is the government doing today to keep faith with these thousands of boys who came back and went on farms? I can take any hon. member and show him within two hours driving distance of my farm dozens of young farmers who came back, went into farming and today are loaded with debt because their gratuities were not sufficient to enable them to carry on and maintain a decent standard of living. I say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who has not seen fit to rise in this debate and tell the house what the conditions of the farmers are in his constituency, that I recall during a debate on agriculture and the wheat situation last year he rose in his seat and said to the house that when coming here he had flown over Port Arthur and he knew that all was well because from the aeroplane he had seen the boats going out of the port. That is not a true picture of the situation. The true picture comes to us through various sources, but sometimes the sources do not assist in presenting a true picture.
I want to refer to some of the newspapers of this country that have tried to put before the people of Canada the true position with respect to the farm situation. I have here a clipping from the Globe and Mail of December 1, 1955. In dealing with the plight of western farmers the editorial points out that the farmer's income has been cut by two-thirds in four years. The editorial goes on to say:
The question does not concern the western farmer alone. It concerns all three prairie provinces, and all the people living in them, who are as dependent upon the farmer as he is dependent upon wheat.
It goes on to say that these farmers have a right to prosper. This afternoon an hon. member from the Liberal benches who sits over in the far corner asked the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) how many farmers were bankrupt in his constituency. Is that the attitude, is that the philosophy of the Liberal party, that we are going to meet this situation by finding out how many bankrupt farmers there are? If it is, I am going to say that not only will the situation in

respect of agriculture be a deplorable one and one which will get worse and worse but it will also take the Canadian economy down with it. I can truly say that we have a situation which is perhaps comparable with that of the 1920's.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Is the
hon. member rising on a point of order?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Edward George McCullough: I have not sufficient time. I have less than 15 minutes. If it were an intelligent question or a more intelligent one than that which was asked this afternoon, I should be quite happy to answer it.
Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail in an editorial of August 3, 1955, has this to say. It states that in the United States during the 1920's the agricultural situation was comparable to the situation we have in Canada today. It first took place in one sector of the economy and gradually grew until we had the calamity in the late twenties. That could very well happen again. I am not predicting it. I do not want it to happen. But if more attention is not paid to that sort of thing, it might well happen again in Canada.
In addition, I want to refer to the falling sales of farm machinery. This article is taken from the Ottawa Journal of August 15, 1955. It illustrates the fact that the farmer has been forced into mechanization in order to increase his efficiency. All during that time he has had to buy on a highly inflated market, paying those prices which We have had gradually increasing since 1945 when this government threw price controls out the window, allowed prices to go up and allowed these machine companies to gouge the farmers for all the traffic would bear, or indeed for all their pockets would bear. This article points out that in 1954 sales of all farm implements in Canada dropped 38 per cent or more than $92 million, and that even the sale of parts went down 14 per cent.
This situation can mean only one thing, Mr. Speaker. It means that if the situation continues we are going to have less efficient operation. It is going to mean that the farmer will not be able to continue to operate with the efficiency that he has shown in the past. The article continues, showing that it is going to mean fewer jobs in other parts of Canada. For instance, it says that the sales in Saskatchewan have dropped by more than one-half. It also shows that the people working in plants manufacturing agricultural
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough equipment in eastern Canada have fewer jobs than they had in the better years prior to 1952.
Then again we have the Montreal Gazette coming to our rescue in a way by trying to point out to this government the situation in respect of farm income. I refer to the Gazette for October 20, 1955. It shows that the income is now down to the 1947 level. Surely all hon. members can understand the plight of the farmer when this sort of thing prevails. It indicates that the farmer is receiving less and less income while many of the segments of our economy are enjoying greater prosperity. It is not fair or just when we have-as we have in Canada today-about 20 per cent of our people working on farms, engaged in agriculture, and receiving somewhat less than 8 per cent of the national income.
Again we have the price squeeze spoken of in many editorials in papers across this country. The Winnipeg Free Press points out that this government has not seen fit in any way to effect some assistance to the farmer. In an article of September 17, 1955, it indicates that even with the tariffs and customs on certain farm implements, the farmer is paying one-third more than he would otherwise have to pay. We in Canada are living in an economy which' is in some measure protected. By that I mean that industry is protected. However, the farmer is obliged in many cases to pay for his farm machinery and parts one-third more than he would otherwise be obliged to pay. This article goes on to say that the sales of parts in Manitoba in 1954 dropped by 12 per cent from the 1953 figures and that parts sales in Saskatchewan dropped by 30 per cent.
This situation affects our whole western economy. It affects our merchants and of course it affects our municipalities as well as our everyday living. It is a matter about which we are tremendously concerned. The truth is that we have a depressed farm income.
The Windsor Star comes to the rescue of the farmer and tries to point out to the people what is happening. Surely this government reads these things and should know them. It indicates that Professor K. A. H. Buckley of the economics department of the University of Saskatchewan says that Canada is suffering an economic problem with regard to agriculture. It goes on to say this:
That being the case, the Canadian government is riding along with the wheat problem, hoping something will turn up.
These are facts, Mr. Speaker. They are not something concocted by any C.C.F. group in this country. I think this government
340	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. E. G. McCullough should measure up to its responsibility at this time. In the Ottawa Citizen of December 22, 1955, it is said that farm income has dropped 23 per cent in the last four years. Mr. H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, states this and he has this observation to make:
"How would anyone else like to take a 25 per cent salary cut?" he asked. "We are not hollering blue ruin or depression, but now is the time when the downward trend must be checked."
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we of this party hope that this government will take some of these statements seriously and that they will do something in respect of the farm problem.
It is true that Saskatchewan is the hardest hit of all the prairie provinces. I have here an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of September 17, 1955, and which indicates that in the first half of 1955 farm income was cut by $30 million. You can see what that means to our Saskatchewan economy. We are not asking for something unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. But when the Canadian economy is rather buoyant and when we have corporation profits as they are today as indicated in the Financial Post, we think we should have the type of policy which will fit the situation and result in building this nation from coast to coast, giving equity and justice to all our people.
I have here a clipping from the Toronto Star of October 7, 1955, indicating that the profits of corporations were 27 per cent higher for the second quarter of that year and that they rose 22-6 per cent over the $664 million for the corresponding period the previous year, according to the bureau of statistics.
I am happy to know that industry is doing well but I think we can have policies of justice. I think we can have policies which will give fairness and equity to all our people. This year the farm people have worked and provided foodstuffs-as they have done in the last five years-not only for this country but for a hungry world. We find them today with their bins full of wheat. In the last two months, because of the fact that they have not been able to provide proper storage facilities, thousands and thousands of bushels of wheat have been ruined by the high winds. The wheat has been blown for miles where it will never be able to be used. We have other grain stored where it is deteriorating month by month. Yet this government, with a gross national product of $26 billion, sits idly by and never lifts a hand to help our farmers build proper storage for their grain. All we are asking is that we have a second look at this problem.


I do not believe western members who represent agricultural constituencies here are doing justice to themselves or to the people they represent. They should be coming down here and telling the true story.
I want to say a word to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang). I have farmed on my farm for over 20 years, yet it is difficult to provide proper storage because the income has never been sufficient to do it. When you have young veterans returning to these farms, who have been farming during these difficult years of rising costs, trying to store their grain and then losing their income year after year-no wonder we are mad. I made an assertion to myself that if I ever had the opportunity to come to this house I would speak for my people.
Over the years I had some military training. I took training at the royal school of artillery and enlisted for active service in the last war. I was denied the opportunity to fight for my country, but-I am prepared to come down here and fight for the boys who fought over there so they will have justice. When this government sees fit to allow this kind of situation to prevail and to allow these cartels and monopolies to take out of the people the kind of profits and the kind of prices they are doing today, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that they have betrayed those boys who went to fight for the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have just been informed by the Clerk that it is now 9.45 and pursuant to the provisions of standing order No. 38, paragraph 3, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: With the indulgence of the house I should like to very briefly explain two points in relation to standing order 38, paragraph 3, because several questions have been put to me. The speech of the hon. member who was in possession of the floor at 9.45 must be considered as concluded, even if he had not then spoken for forty minutes. He has, however, full right to speak on any subsequent amendment or subamendment. This is my first point.
The second point relates to time. The monitoring of the time limit imposed by standing order 31 has been controlled by the Clerks at the table. Their timekeeping is always most accurate. Therefore I relied, as hon. members may have noticed, for the exact time at which I had to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment this evening, not on the clocks surrounding this house, which although very well supervised may go out of order, but on the announcement by the Clerk that it was 9.45. If it meets with the approval of the house I shall be guided likewise in the future for all similar interruptions contemplated by our standing orders.
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions