1956-01-13

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REQUEST FOR ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION ON FARM GRANARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the grain congestion and the necessary construction of farm storage facilities, has the minister given consideration to granting farmers accelerated depreciation for income tax purposes on farm granaries?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the government has given very serious and careful consideration to all the problems which have arisen in the grain trade.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the results of this consideration become known?


James Joseph McCann: The best answer I can make to that question is a repetition of the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He said that the government's legislation program with respect to grain is on the order paper. He also said that if there is any further program, it will appear on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: should like to direct a question to the 67509-6
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister tell the house whether the proposed simplification of formalities in the case of British immigrants coming to Canada referred to by his deputy minister, Mr. Laval Fortier, at a press conference in Canada House as reported in the French newspaper Le Droit, is intended for British immigrants only or whether these simplifications will be extended to all immigrants coming to Canada regardless of their original nationality?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the hon. gentleman's advantage of having read the particular item in question. I think perhaps it would be wise for me to read it before I attempt to explain it.



INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is any agency of the minister's department or of any other government department taking any measures, in co-operation with provincial and municipal agencies, to discover the cause of so many fires in homes and apartments, and to prevent the appalling loss of life in such fires? If so, what measures are being taken?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The division of building research of the national research council has a fire research section, the object of which is to investigate all aspects of fires with special reference to loss of life and the improvement of buildings with respect to fire hazards. The head of the section receives all second degree fire calls in the city of Ottawa, and therefore the national research council through its fire research section has studied all serious fires in the capital city in close co-operation with the Ottawa fire department during the last three or four years.
As the question suggests, the responsibility for fire prevention is a provincial matter under the British North America Act. The officer directly responsible is the fire marshal in the various provinces. The division to which I have referred works closely with the fire marshal and reports to him the results

Inquiries of the Ministry of their studies. In general, the division is working to eliminate fire hazards from Canadian homes and Canadian buildings. The difficulty at the moment is that these fires occur in the older houses and about all that the building research department can do is to call attention to the hazards in the home, the necessity for cleanliness, the necessity for having wiring checked, particularly if the wiring is old, and to ask that all precautions be taken.
I believe that as a result of the study we are moving toward a better class of fire-resistant building in newer construction both of homes and of other types of buildings.


Joseph William Noseworthy: May I ask two questions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the large number of children who have recently lost their lives in burning homes and apartments, and in view of the fact that many mothers left alone with small children have no knowledge of what to do in case of fire, will the minister consider the advisability of including with the children's allowance cheques which go to the mothers of the country every month-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -some suggestions prepared by experts to be followed in case of fire?
My second question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon, member be good enough to allow the minister to reply to this already lengthy question before he puts his second question? May I tell him now that if the second one is of the same length and gives as much information as the first, perhaps he might now consider revising it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I shall wait for the minister's answer to the first one.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. gentleman gave me notice of his intention to ask this question yesterday and the matter that he asks about is going to receive our careful consideration. I may tell him that already our department of information has issued pamphlets in the thousands about fire prevention in co-operation with the Ontario fire marshal's office. I was in touch with the Ontario fire marshal yesterday, and 1 found that his office, under the direction of the attorney general of the province of Ontario, does distribute material somewhat along the lines suggested. However, the matter will receive careful attention.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have given his most capable parliamentary assistant verbal but unofficial notice of the question. In view of the minister's summer-long consideration of the question of amending the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide for an allowance to be paid to veterans who have to reside outside of Canada for health reasons, can he inform the house of the results of his summer's reflection and pondering on this question?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the introductory remarks of the hon. member before he put his question, I am not sure that he should not have addressed it to my parliamentary assistant. However, I shall endeavour to answer him by saying that the question of paying war veterans allowance to a veteran residing outside of Canada has received, as he knows, consideration on numerous occasions. It was again given very careful study after the close of the last session. The decision has been reached that no amendment would be made at this time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister give the house the true reasons for the delay in commencing the construction of the new post office in the city of Quebec?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I am not aware of any unusual delays, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member would do well to have a personal chat with me and tell me what he has in mind.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I only want to know the reason for the delay in the commencement of the construction of the new post office in the city of Quebec.


Robert Henry Winters: There are no delays and no obstacles. We are progressing with the development of the plans and specifications.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has given favourable consideration to the suggestion that a select committee of the house be set up to inquire into Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, which was mentioned in the speech from the throne?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision reached to recommend to the house the establishment of a select committee to deal with that matter.



INQUIRY AS TO REQUESTS FOR DISASTER RELIEF FOR MARITIME PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. I regret that I have not had the opportunity to give him notice, so perhaps he might take my question as notice. Has any request been received by the government from any of the maritime provincial governments for disaster relief to help alleviate hardship caused by the recent disastrous storms and floods in the maritime provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no request has been received from any of the maritime provinces, but I shall inquire whether any such request has been received by any of the departments.



REVISION OF EMPIRE TRADE AGREEMENT AND GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Is the minister aware of a statement made by the Australian minister of trade and commerce recently, indicating some feeling that there has to be a revision of the empire trade agreement and also the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Has there been any official communication from the Australian government to the Canadian government in that regard? If so, is the matter likely to be the subject of further conferences or further communications?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: I regret to say I have not seen the newspaper article in question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Two days ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nor have I seen any official communication from the Australian government in that regard. If one has been received, no doubt the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will so advise. I have not seen it.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Will the government be prepared at this session to introduce legislation implementing any agreement reached between the federal government and the provinces respecting health insurance?	[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the federal and the provincial governments are to meet pursuant to a suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the conference which was held in this chamber on October 3. That conference set up a subcommittee consisting of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance and the provincial treasurers of the provinces. That committee is to meet on January 23 next. I would remind my hon. friend of the words of the premier of Ontario, that the only way to make progress in this matter is to recognize that co-operation between the provincial and the federal governments is essential. I would hope the hon. gentleman would agree with that view.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES CRASH AT MOOSE JAW IN 1954    STATEMENT AS TO SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members of the house will be interested to know that all the claims arising out of the death of passengers and crew of a T.C.A. North Star aircraft resulting from the collision between that aircraft and an R.C.A.F. Harvard aircraft near Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, on April 8, 1954, have now been settled.
I think hon. members will agree with me that it would not be desirable to make
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker public the amounts paid to next of kin with respect to each of the 31 individual passengers and four members of the crew. I may say, however, that the total amount paid in settlement of these claims was slightly under one million dollars.
It has been impossible, in spite of the most careful and painstaking investigations by technical and legal experts of the Department of Transport, the Department of National Defence and Trans-Canada Air Lines, to ascertain responsibility for the accident.
As a result of the accident T.C.A. suffered a very heavy loss in the value of the plane. The government has therefore decided that it would be only fair and equitable for the crown to pay the third party claims. This the crown has done.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 12, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Shipley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in commencing my remarks this morning may I join with those who have preceded me in offering a word of congratulation to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to His Excellency's speech. In so far as the hon. member for Timiskaming is concerned, may I say that I listened with interest to her references to her recent trip to Paris in connection with the NATO parliamentary association. I should like to say to you that the hon. member for Timiskaming, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and Senator Fergusson, who were the lady members of the group that went from Canada, made a contribution to the deliberations of that conference which was referred to most favourably by all in attendance.
As to the seconder, may I say that the longer one is in the House of Commons the more one looks for that infusion of youth and ability which elections generally bring to the House of Commons. My mind goes back to 1945 when a group of brilliant young members, representative of all parties, entered this house. You, sir, were a member of that group. Two or three other members of that group have become members of the cabinet, while others have made important
[Mr. Campney.I

contributions. All this strengthens that concept of democracy without which the House of Commons cannot discharge its responsibilities.
I have read the speech from the throne and having read it I must say that one would almost think that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had placed in the hands of the Governor General a copy of the speeches delivered in 1929 and 1930. There was adulation for the prosperity which exists, along with a complete playing-down of the current agricultural situation in this country. Reading those speeches of 1929 and 1930 one realizes that the government of that day lived in the same dreamland which was apparent in the speech delivered the other day by His Excellency. He spoke of the expanding economy, but he played down the serious situation of agriculture in the country. At that time, however, the situation was different; generally speaking, agriculture was in a precarious position everywhere in the world. Today that is not a fact.
However, before I deal with the question of agriculture, which to one coming from a western constituency, or indeed from any constituency in Canada today, is a matter of paramount importance, there are one or two references I wish to make to matters which for some reason or other have not found their way into the speech from the throne.
One is in connection with the development of T.C.A. The Prime Minister yesterday afternoon mentioned that something must be brought about, or will be brought about in the future, whereby the federal and provincial authorities will join together in a national development policy. One of the first things that has to be considered in that connection is the transportation problem.
Some years ago-I think it was in 1953- the Canadian Pacific Air Lines asked for a permit from the transport board to operate a freight line throughout the northern section of Canada between Montreal, Winnipeg, Prince Albert, Edmonton and Vancouver. At that time the Prime Minister stated that the decision that was then made was not to be taken as the "perpetuation of monopoly conditions". We in the northern part of Saskatchewan-and the same applies generally in all the areas in the western provinces-are today denied air services because of the monopoly in effect that denies any competition to the T.C.A.
I should like to hear from the Prime Minister in that connection. What is going to be done? Is this era of monopoly centralization in the T.C.A. to continue? Has not the T.C.A. held for sufficiently long a position whereby it has been able to prevent competition? Is

it not time that, in so far as freight deliveries are . concerned in particular, competition should be permitted? As far as the passenger situation is concerned, competition could do no harm to the T.C.A.; it could only improve services.
The safety record of T.C.A.-and mention was made by the minister today of the tragic episode at Moose Jaw-has been good. But surely, when national development beyond anything ever before expected is immediately before us, the time has come for a reconsideration of the whole matter and for the Prime Minister to go even further than he went in 1953 when he said that the decision then made was not to be understood as a perpetuation of monopoly conditions.
What I have said in that connection represents my own views on this subject. I believe the problem of air transportation deserves serious consideration at this session of parliament. Certainly those of us who have had the privilege of travelling abroad and have seen something of the value of competition in other countries believe that the time has come for a reconsideration of this matter, so that such arrangements may be made as will permit competition with T.C.A. in this country.
Then there is another matter, which affects particularly those of us who live on interprovincial rivers. On a number of occasions, I have raised in this house the question of the seriousness of pollution and its effects on those who reside in urban centres on interprovincial rivers. The problem is with us again on the North Saskatchewan river, and I am asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to give consideration at this session of parliament to meeting it. This problem cannot be met by provincial co-operation, as we have found in the meetings that have taken place between the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It can only be met as it is met in the United States, by amendments of the criminal law to the end that wilful pollution shall indeed be an offence as against the state.
Those are the two problems I mentioned that particularly affect and are of interest not only to the constituency of Prince Albert but also to other areas in other parts of Canada; first the hampering and throttling effect of lack of competition to the T.C.A. and second to river pollution.
Coming to some of the matters that have already been dealt with, and I do not want to be repetitious, we on this side of the house are not given to panegyrics of our leader or paeans of praise which in some parts of this house apparently are a routine matter.
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) yesterday reviewing the situation in this country, I could not but think how right he has been on many matters in the last several years. He has dealt with the wheat situation on several occasions. But to what effect? Well, we are met by those optimistic utterances to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has almost patent rights.
When we pictured the danger of accumulating surpluses, we were met by the argument, all is well. The farmers of this country were assured on more than one occasion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there was nothing to fear. "Do not worry about these surpluses", he said in effect. "You will have none of them on your farms at the end of the present crop year". That is what he told the people of Canada, particularly those engaged in agriculture, last year. That is what he told the people of Canada in February, 1955, when this matter of piling up surpluses on the farms of the country was before the house. I think I ought to read what he said on that occasion. On the 18th of February, 1955, after dealing with the question of carryovers, he said this as found on page 1312 of Hansard:
However, as I say our sales are very good. I can assure hon. members, I think with certainty-
There was authority; "with certainty", he said
-that before the crop year ends on July 31 any producer who has grain of any kind that he wishes to market will have had an opportunity of marketing it.
That was his statement in February, 1955. What has happened since to change that opinion? I will refer to the United States policy in a moment, but their policy as between February and July was such that it interfered but very little with wheat marketing anywhere in the world. Then the minister produced this, Mr. Speaker, which for optimism is indeed a howitzer. As found at page 1313 of Hansard he said:
We will have a substantial carryover of wheat, but that wheat will all be in public storage.
"All!"
Storage on the farm will no longer be a problem to western Canada.
That was in February of 1955. One hundred million answers to that false prophecy are to be found in the granaries of western Canada.
Then to return once more to the Leader of the Opposition, let me point out that he indicated over and over again from 1952 on that we were indeed losing our markets and in particular that we are losing the British market. On two or three occasions in this house motions were made to assure something

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker in the nature of a commonwealth conference to provide for the building of a spirit of co-operation so that our markets within the commonwealth would not be lost. Again we were faced by the optimism and were told: Do not worry about it; we are in office; all is well with the world. That was the attitude.
Then came the serious situation in the prairie provinces. It could be seen coming all summer long. I refer to the inability of the farmer to market. We asked for cash advances. One of the first to ask for that assistance was the Leader of the Opposition, who so often is painted as being inimical to the west. Was he not right on the question of markets? No one can deny that he was. Was he not right when he demanded advances on farm-stored wheat? I should like to see any of the western members stand up and say that he was wrong. One of them made the statement that you cannot have advances because, if you do, you have the elevator men engaged in the money business. As a matter of fact, under the present system, today it is the elevator men who will have to collect for the banks or assure that the banks receive their payment.
The Prime Minister went west in September on the occasion of our jubilee celebration. When he returned to the east and he said he thought-and now I am generalizing as to his words, although I have the exact phraseology-that very few people in the west needed assistance, that all was well. I say this to the Prime Minister. Has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) not told you about the meeting he attended in Marquette constituency? If you want an answer, ask him. Let him bring the message to Garcia. Has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) not told you-I say this, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister-or let you in on the secret that the west is aroused and that almost unanimously the people are asking for cash advances? You say that the loan system will fill the bill and you are asking the farmer to pay 5 per cent on his earnings. You are asking the farmer to pay interest on his income. Is it any wonder that feeling is aroused in western Canada today? When action is asked for, energetic evasion of responsibility has become the first care of this government.
Must I prove to the government today what conditions are like? I am not going over the statistics that have already been placed before the house. We are in a serious position in the west and when we are in a serious position, it is only a matter of time until the effect will be felt everywhere in the dominion. Farm implement sales are down. Retail sales in Saskatchewan are lower than they have been for several years. The reason

is simply this. While the farmers have done their job, they relied on the kind of humbug that is to be found in this speech of February 16 to which I have made reference. They relied on the humbug that markets would be found for their wheat, that they did not have to worry about farm storage, and they acted accordingly.
Here are some figures, Mr. Speaker, that indicate the net income of farmers in western Canada for the last three or four years, beginning in 1949. I could go back farther if anybody wanted me to do so.
Farm income on the Prairies
	($ millions)
1949 			 810
1950 			 630
1951 			 1,127
1952 			 1,082
1953 			 884
1954 		376
In that period of time, as was mentioned yesterday by the leader of the C.C.F. party, the purchasing power of the dollar has gone down since the war by approximately 50 per cent. If you take that fact into consideration, you begin to realize something of the difficulties in which we find ourselves today in western Canada, in spite of the optimistic statements made by the various ministers of the crown.
I have a suggestion to make to the Prime Minister. If he wants to find out what the people of western Canada think of the cavalier treatment the west has received at the hands of this government in regard to cash advances, let him appoint one of those western members-and there are some ambitious ones-to the Senate and let us have a byelection. Then there will be an answer. If the Minister of Justice was not able to make the Prime Minister realize the situation the Minister of Mines and Technical surveys (Mr. Prudham) should; or if the Minister of Agriculture has not been able to convey it to the Prime Minister, the result of such a by-election would do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The result would not interest the Conservative party.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact the government finds itself in the position that it cannot act. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes a stand, that stand binds the government. The only hope we have of the government's changing its attitude with regard to stored wheat is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go on another fishing trip. That is the one hope we have in western Canada today. The handling of this problem is a tragedy of errors; it is a chronic and tragic record of self-deception, optimism and

arrogance. It is an attitude on the part of the government that constitutes a mockery of the public demand for action.
I want to say to the leader of the C.C.F. that the amendment moved yesterday is one that represents the attitude generally of the farmers in western Canada. I had hoped that it would not be tacked on to the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne because that does not give my hon. friends from western Canada supporting the government a true opportunity of standing up and being counted. If that amendment had been made on going into supply, the people of western Canada, who ask for and demand cash advances, would have been able to find out, once and for all, where the Liberal members stand on this demand. Cash advances are asked for and demanded by them.
What is the over-all policy on agriculture? There was a conference of provincial ministers of agriculture last fall with the federal Minister of Agriculture. Was there an overall future policy developed? I could not see it. Where is the unity in the government today? On the one hand you have the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking in Calgary and making a statement in regard to competition by the United States of America. He said:
We have told, our United States friends quite frankly we regard some of their recent actions as detrimental not only to Canada's interests but to the interests of all countries including their own.
That is one minister. Then, we have the other minister, the Minister of Agriculture, commending Benson of the United States for his policy on the disposal of surplus agricultural products.


Mr. Gardiner:: On everything but wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, another amended statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not an amended statement; that is the original statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The government should have a department of ministerial muffs through which corrections in quotations and statements would be made. That is the first time there has been any circumlocution in regard to this question. The . minister has never denied making the statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an absolutely false statement. I have set forth the correct statement at least once a week ever since.


John George Diefenbaker: Now I understand why there have been so many messages to the press lately. This is one of the statements that the press has not been reporting then,
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker although it has reported some of the other alterations, changes or alleged misquotations. It has not reported this one.


James Garfield Gardiner: You apparently do not read your own local newspapers.


John George Diefenbaker: That, of course, is no answer. I have here every correction, and it takes a big file to cover the Minister of Agriculture's corrections.
Then, again, the Minister of Agriculture has been speaking in favour of parity. He made a speech before the agricultural conference in Ottawa and he said this in regard to maintaining a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations:
This, in our opinion, is more helpful than saying parity, which can mean many different things. You can call it parity or whatever you like.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce, almost on the same day, speaking before the farmers' union of Alberta, said:
We have seen the unpleasant results of parity pricing in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is pay your money and take your choice.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are both the same if you read them. We are both opposed to the application of parity as in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: There seems to be divided responsibility between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Agriculture wants a certain kind of action and the Minister of Trade and Commerce strongly adheres, and continues to adhere, to his declarations of the past regardless of their application to the present.
The loan system that was evolved is a sham and a delusion. It is meaningless. Farmer after farmer comes to me and says, "I can borrow from the bank without that because I have the credit." Farmer after farmer is turned down by the banks in western Canada. Then, in addition to that, there is the other point that the farmers find themselves in a position of having to swallow the pill of paying interest on their earnings, paying interest on their year's work. Surely, Mr. Speaker, even at this late date the Prime Minister will give reconsideration to the declaration made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which can be interpreted as nothing else but placing a final stamp of disapproval on farm-stored grain.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
What a mess! Granaries filled and farmers unable to sell. What an example of disorganization! The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that there was 100 million bushels of available terminal space at the head of the lakes of the Pacific coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not true, but you can repeat it again.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard the minister say before that a statement was not true, only to have it proven true, as was the case with his statement on February 16 last.
Here are the figures. I simply take them from the grain statistics weekly issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, and they indicate that the amount of general storage in Canada today is approximately 600 million bushels, 598 million bushels.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the nominal storage; you can discount that by 10 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can make his speech later.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not like these phony statements being put on the record.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no one in this house who has more often created a surplus of chaff than the minister. The dominion bureau of statistics grain statistics weekly, page 1, indicates that there is in storage in Canada 364 million bushels of wheat. Then there are other grains, oats, barley, rye, flax seed, etc., equal to 157,049,000 bushels. This makes a total of 521,809,000 bushels. Deducting the amount of available storage, that would leave over 100 million bushels still available and unused. How does this happen? It is because of another failure. They set up a transport controller who apparently does everything but control. The figures show that we are short of box cars.
I have available here the January 11 issue of a bureau of statistics bulletin which indicates that during the year 1955 the number of grain cars used decreased by some 31,000; grain products by some 4,900; coal went up; concentrates went up; gasoline and fuel oil; sand, gravel and crushed rock; iron ore some four times; lumber, timber and plywood; newsprint and various other commodities went up materially in their use of freight cars. Why cannot we in western Canada receive a fair and proper allotment? What is the reason? Is it because the hauling of wheat is not profitable? Is that the answer? Is it because some other commodities are more profitable? I pose these questions and I ask, is that not another example of the kind of thing that has caused the


greatest emergency in western Canada's history. There is available space for storage which is unused because of the shortage of freight cars.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce himself, when he spoke in Edmonton to one of the organizations meeting there in the month of November, said we were 10,000 cars short in the western provinces. What is this but another example of what the Leader of the Opposition called yesterday the inertia of a government too long in power, disdainful of the wishes of the people and of the needs of the times?
I have only a few more minutes left, sir. I want to place before the government a number of suggestions that have come to me from farm representatives in western Canada. I do so with diffidence because of the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in July last when he said in effect that he did not listen to anything the opposition said. I am addressing these remarks to the Prime Minister. I ask him to realize that today the Canadian farmer on the whole is not sharing equitably or fairly in the national income with the other sections of the country. The prairie farmer is the worst off. Today his income has been cut down approximately 50 per cent from the high point of several years ago.
We are not asking for a handout. The western wheat farmer has not received handouts. We are asking for a measure of justice, not the dubious hopes that are to be found in a royal commission set up to determine Canada's economic position 25 years hence. What we want today is action. The fundamentally important thing is immediately to make available cash advances. Second, immediate action to make available the necessary box cars so that the farmers will be able to sell what they have to the extent of the available storage. Why can that not be granted?
These are two things for which we ask. They will not cost anybody anything, because if you get an advance on account of your wheat you cannot fool anybody. You cannot commit a fraud on anybody because you have no quota book, and there is no quota book for thieves.
The Leader of the Opposition yesterday mentioned the disposal of those portions of the surpluses of wheat that are a little better than feed. Is there not some way that that wheat can be removed from the main terminals? Can there not be co-operation brought about between the federal and the provincial authorities so that in the form of government guaranteed bank loans the eastern farmers would be encouraged to purchase

their feed requirements in advance and thereby utilize storage space existing at the present time at the terminals and also on thousands of farms in western Canada? I can see nothing in the way of doing that. Today the farmers are throttled; they cannot sell anywhere except to the wheat board. Surely, the first thing is to do something to remove that surplus of unsaleable wheat; that is, unsaleable for human consumption.
I should now like to refer to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), which were made when he was in Europe, to the effect that there was a possibility of trade in wheat with Russia. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) seemed to admit that something along that line was taking place, but he said he did not want to become involved in a discussion on wheat.
The NATO organization is being challenged today as never before. Is there any possibility of strengthening that organization in the interests of economic unity so that the various NATO countries will, in unity of purpose, set up something in the nature of a food bank, as advocated by the FAO, to the end that strategic quantities of durable farm products will be maintained in a central place? If that were done, the surpluses would be removed from the farms not by the destructive conditions of the 1930's but by the government and placed in a position where in the years ahead they might be utilized for the benefit of mankind.
What consideration has the government given to the United States plan to set up a soil bank program in that country? Today we have something similar under the P.F.R.A. under which submarginal lands are taken out of production. Is there not something inherently good in the United States plan which could be made available to Canada so that we could meet the problem with which we are faced today? We are going to have many surpluses in the future so long as technological skill and reasonable climatic conditions remain.
Is it not also time to give reconsideration to proceeding with the project which has received the continuing support of the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project? The Secretary of State for External Affairs opened the new Canada dam in India, a dam that will irrigate
250.000	acres, with an ultimate objective of
600.000	acres. I believe in the Colombo plan and its extension; but surely, while we are engaged in such a plan in another country, we on the prairies in Canada and in the province of Saskatchewan have the right to ask whether the time has not come to give favourable consideration to the request of the western provinces to proceed with a
The Address-Mr. Legare similar project here. The Minister of Agriculture has often suggested, the building of this project so that when the days of famine come again in western Canada we shall be able, through its instrumentality, to diversify our agriculture and raise our economic level to that of some of the other provinces.
(Translation) :


Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker,
before I state my reasons for speaking today,
I should like to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. We had already become familiar with the warm, convincing, voice of the hon. member for Timiskaming and we knew that she would open this debate with wise and judicious remarks. The new member for Belle-chasse has revealed himself as a valuable asset for the right wing of the house and we are grateful to the electors of his constituency for sending to this parliament a young man full of talent, life and spirit.
Now that the house is called upon to study many measures of more or less immediate effects on the economic future of the country,
I should like, at the beginning of this session, to emphasize the dangers which threaten us unless a better balance can be established between progress in industry and that of agriculture.
We have learned in the speech from the throne that parliament will be asked to enact legislation designed to help the farmers of western Canada. We easterners shall gladly do so, knowing that the effects of an economic upset in the prairie provinces would soon be felt out here.
However, if the west has its problems we also have our own, and even though they are not mentioned explicitly in the speech from the throne we expect that this parliament will continue its policy of agricultural price support. If we go back to 1944, the year when that legislation was enacted, we see that the avowed intention of the legislator was then to provide sufficient and steady revenues for the farmers during the period of transition from war to peace and-today this is the most important point-to seek to achieve a fair balance between the revenues of agriculture and those of other fields of endeavour.
This fair balance does not yet exist and all legislatures should try to achieve it. On the other hand, agriculture in Quebec and Ontario would have been depressed long ago if that legislation had not been passed 12 years ago.
A superficial examination of the problem might suggest that it is illogical to maintain
82	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Legare price support in the case of butter for example when there seems to be overproduction. On going deeper into this problem, we find two things: if the support price goes down, production will immediately decrease so that it will no longer be sufficient for domestic consumption. We will then have to import butter. Then, too, the income of farmers will fall and they will quit the farm, which will lead the agricultural economy to bankruptcy.
And here I wish to congratulate the government on having found ways and means to dispose of the butter surpluses of the last two or three years without dislocating the market of allied countries. There has been criticism of our sales of butter to iron curtain countries at prices lower than those prevailing on our domestic market, but those who make this criticism seem to forget that the crux of the problem is to sell our butter without weakening our local marketing position and without affecting the support price.
The government can sell its surpluses to anybody, to Russia or communist China if need be, at any price it can obtain. That is a secondary matter. The point I wish to emphasize is this. The government should ensure the producer a return high enough to cover his costs of production. Our workers understand that the farmer needs money to buy the goods they themselves produce. They know also that, before the implementation of legislation regarding the support price of butter, they paid as much as 80 or 90 cents a pound for this product. I am therefore pleased to congratulate the government on its policy in this field and I urge it to give even closer consideration to the gap between the revenue of the farmer in Quebec and that of other classes of workers.
The dairy industry plays an important part in the economy of my constituency. Besides, the province of Quebec has the largest milk production of the whole country. This production has kept growing since 1950, from 4,830,000,000 to 5,575,000,000 pounds. A third of this production is sold as fluid milk and the rest is used in the manufacture of butter and cheese.
This single industry brings Quebec an annual return of some $170 million. Quebec is also the largest butter producer and last year manufactured close to 120 million pounds. In the production of cheese, it comes second, Ontario being first with 61,827,000 pounds in 1953 as compared with 13,600,000 pounds in Quebec.
(Mr. Legare.]

If the province of Quebec is the largest milk producer it is also the greatest consumer of this product. Daily consumption represents 1-06 pints per capita, whereas the average for the country is 0-86 pint. These few figures show the importance of that industry in the province of Quebec, and the necessity for the governments to give it their constant attention.
And as the overproduction of wheat in the western provinces will again be discussed at length during this session, I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in part of my constituency, as well as in some of the neighbouring counties, last summer drought almost completely ruined the grain crops. This winter, a great many farmers who were able each year to sell a few hundred bushels of grain will have to buy $500, $1,000 or even $1,500 worth of grain. Such losses are beyond their means, and it is to be hoped that the Catholic farmers' union can get the provincial authorities to solve this problem if necessary with the help of federal authorities.
If the speech from the throne contained nothing of interest for the Leader of the Opposition, I was glad for my part to learn that the National Housing Act will be amended so as to provide for an increase of the amount and number of loans granted; that the bank for industrial development will be authorized to widen its field of action; that the Canadian farm loan board will be able to grant larger loans; and that a group of women workers will receive better pay.
On the other hand, we know that the government is trying to reduce winter unemployment, that it is planning to assist more unemployed and, finally, to improve all its services.
I want to seize this opportunity to congratulate the government for improving the air service to Quebec and in the eastern sector of my province. There has been increased activity at the airports of Mont Joli and Rimouski, in my riding, and this increased traffic should be maintained. Mont Joli has an airport of considerable importance which could be used more freely, and 1 would ask the Department of National Defence to consider the possibility of stationing a squadron there.
The people of Trois Pistoles were glad to hear that their town will get a public building and they hope to obtain the necessary votes this very session.
To conclude those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of

the government, particularly the Department of Transport, to the need for a new icebreaker built to provide winter navigation between both shores of the St. Lawrence, east of Saguenay. No longer can water transportation of food and materials be suspended for three or four months each year. Industry is fast developing in this area of the province and the population there is likely to double within a few years.
Before long, mining operations and the development of new industrial communities, both on the north and on the south shores, will call for more powerful ferry boats designed to operate all the year round. But a fairly regular service can be maintained only if an icebreaker helps them from time to time. I know, for that matter, that recommendations to that effect will be made before the Gordon commission by some industries on the north shore.
In closing I congratulate the newly elected members in this house and I hope they will find in their new responsibilities the satisfaction arising from well-performed duty.
(Text) :


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it would be easy for hon. members of the house to come to the conclusion that the present agricultural situation in this nation concerns only the farmers of the three prairie provinces, but I am afraid that that conclusion would not be correct. The agricultural crisis that exists in Canada today is one that faces agriculture from one end of the nation to the other. It is true that it may be more aggravated in the prairies, but nevertheless the crisis faces farmers in all provinces.
I hold in my hand the Economic Annalist, an official publication of the dominion bureau of statistics. The Economic Annalist takes the base period 1935-39 and indicates the prices of agricultural products as being equal to 100. Then for the same base period it indicates farmers' costs of production as also being 100. The latest index for prices of farm products is 225. Yet the index for farmers' costs of production has gone up since the late 1930's by an even greater amount. The cost of production index for agriculture today is 241. Thus according to the economists and statisticians of the federal government, as published in the Economic Annalist, this is a more adverse price-cost relationship than even in the late 1930's. In other words, prices for agricultural products across the country today in relation to the farmers' costs of production are even worse than they were in the late 1930's-worse today than when the Minister of Agriculture first took office in 1935.
The Address-Mr. Argue
The crisis in the prairies is not one that faces farmers only. As a matter of fact, it affects almost everyone in those three provinces. Certainly the businessmen who have advanced credit to the farmers have large amounts on their books and are as deeply concerned in solving this problem as are the farmers themselves. So the need to solve the agricultural crisis is important to the whole Canadian nation, to the people in all provinces, and to the businessmen and the farmers on the prairies in particular.
The crisis has not developed overnight. As a matter of fact, the trend has been apparent to a great many of us for a long time. We have seen sales of farm products going dawn. We have seen sales and exports of grain going down. We asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce time and time again, not only what the government was going to do to increase sales, but how he could explain the very serious deterioration in the sales of Canadian wheat. On 15th February, 1955, as shown on page 1157 of Hansard, he replied to a question of mine as follows:


Hazen Robert Argue: Am I to take it from the minister's statement that he is saying that export clearances of wheat during the present year will be greater than last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Address-Mr. Argue export sales for the balance of the crop year, at this rate we shall export in the present crop year less than 200 million bushels of Canadian wheat. With this huge surplus of wheat on hand even if we did not get a crop for the next three years, at this rate of selling Canadian wheat at the end of a three-year period we would still have a surplus on hand. That is the situation. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce able to comprehend it? Apparently not. As late as 28th March, 1955, he said:
Our percentage of total sales has been reasonably good.
While the Minister of Trade and Commerce was away in April the Minister of Public Works was Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. I asked him what was happening to Canada's sales of wheat, and he had this to say, as shown on page 2940 of Hansard:
The situation is that Canadian export sales in the present crop year have been substantially higher than during the last crop year.
He even went one step further. He said:
Canada has been retaining her place in all her established markets and has indeed got an increased share in many of them.
That was what the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce said. On 13th May, 1955, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question along the same lines, and the minister replied:
There is no drop from last year in the sales of Canadian wheat.
How can we have confidence in the policy of the government? How can we have confidence in the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? How can we have confidence in the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday that sales are improving, when every statement as to the sales made last year and since has been proven to be incorrect, since exports of Canadian wheat in the crop year just ended were even lower than the figure for the previous year, and exports in the current crop year are running 23J per cent below last year as of 4th January, 1956?
That is not the only place where the forecasts were lamentably inaccurate. We were interested to know whether the policy the government was following with respect to the wheat board would be such as to get the grain off the farms. As late as 7th July, 1955, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say as to the farmers' likely ability

to deliver their grain before the end of the crop year. As shown on page 5803 of Hansard, he said:
I am still confident that before the next crop starts to move we will have off the farms all the grain that producers now wish to deliver.
He was completely wrong. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, three weeks before the end of the crop year, with the experience he has in the grain business and with the officials he has in his department, surely must have had information that suggested that there would be a very large quantity of grain on the farms and it would be impossible for farmers at that late date to deliver all the grain they wished to sell before the new crop came on the market. As a matter of fact, at the end of the crop year there were approximately 100 million bushels of wheat alone in farmers' bins, and other grains totalled almost 100 million bushels. So the Minister of Trade and Commerce's forecast was rather inaccurate. He was upward of 200 million bushels out, three weeks before the statistics were compiled and produced. I ask him at that time, on the same day, whether the eight-bushel quota would be delivered. He said that there would be lots of box cars by that time, adding, "And then my hon. friend will have nothing to complain about."


Clarence Decatur Howe: The eight bushel quota was delivered.


Mr. Nicholson:: Not then.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I asked if the eight bushel quota would be delivered before the end of the crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it will not.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what I asked about and the minister said "Yes". I took it from the minister's answer that he was saying that the farmer would be able to market his eight bushel quota before the end of the crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They marketed it shortly after the end of the crop year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Not before.


Hazen Robert Argue: As recently as one month ago thousands of farmers in western Canada had yet to deliver their eight bushel quota.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I deny that. I will give you the figures.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Star-Phoenix published a report in the first part of August to the effect that in northern Saskatchewan 60 per cent of the farmers had yet to deliver their eight bushel quota.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: And I personally know farmers who a month ago had not yet delivered their eight bushel quota.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They had a permit to deliver it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says that they had a permit. Certainly they had a permit, but the elevators were full and the box cars were down in the United States or had disappeared some other place. There is a whole lot of difference between a permit to deliver and some place to put the grain when the farmer wishes to deliver it. I think the minister should take a lesson from what has happened: in the last 12 months and not make statements that are inaccurate and will be proven inaccurate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am particular from whom I take lessons.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, if the minister would take lessons from some members on this side of the house he would not be making the wrong statements he is making almost every time he refers to the grain situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will make many more statements.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has one answer to the problem. He has a resolution on the order paper whereby the national treasury will make certain payments for the carrying of stocks of grain in excess of 178 million bushels after the first of August of last year. I am glad that resolution is on the order paper. We will certainly support it but it will not meet the situation. As a matter of fact, by itself it will do very little to cope with the situation. I want to say to members of parliament outside the prairie provinces and to others who are already writing in some eastern papers: Do not think that the few millions of dollars that will be spent as a result of the passing of this legislation is something that is a handout to the prairie producers or in fact is something that will be of benefit to the prairie producers only.
The huge mountain of wheat, oats and barley in the prairie provinces that is undelivered, in the farmers' yards, stands as a threat to the agricultural industry from one end of this nation to the other unless something is done about it. The farmers of Ontario have a stake in what is done with the grain of western Canada. The resolution on the order paper now will never convince the prairie farmers that the government means to advance money on the grain and to buy the grain or that the farmers will be able to obtain an income from their year's work. However, it at least gives them some ray of encouragement that maybe after a long, long
The Address-Mr. Argue sleep the government is finally rousing and beginning to view dimly the magnitude of the problem.
If the farmers of western Canada should ever be convinced that they are not going to be able to sell their grain, and decide to feed it to livestock, livestock prices and prices for dairy products across the nation will collapse. They are falling now as a matter of fact because they are already below the selling floor that has been established under pork by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Suppose the prairie farmers should decide to do this. Suppose they should decide to take 10 per cent of the wheat surplus, maybe 100 million bushels of wheat being 10 per cent of the surplus last fall, 50 million bushels of oats, 10 per cent of that surplus, and 33 million bushels of barley, 10 per cent of that surplus, and feed this grain to livestock. If it were put into hogs there would be 1,800 million more pounds of pork produced in Canada this year than have ever been produced before. This is twice as much pork as the total quantity produced in Canada in 1954.
The Minister of Agriculture thinks he has a little trouble now with some surplus butter. He has also had a little surplus pork. But let the farmers on the prairie provinces decide that in order to get some money out of their grain they are going to have to feed it to hogs then the hog market will collapse. With the collapse of the market for pork, the market for beef will also collapse. If the prices of coarse grains collapse there will be an increase in the marketing of cream and butter and then the government's legislation may not be able to stand the strain of the increased quantities of dairy products that will be coming on the market.
Therefore I say that everyone in Canada should be supporting the very small step that is now being taken to deal with this problem. Once again I regret the policy is to pay something only to the elevator companies. Why does the government not start with the farmers? In this situation I believe the farmers are more important than the elevator companies and that if storage is to be paid to the elevator companies as will be the case, then storage should be paid on farm-stored grain. If you were to pay storage to the farmers, as could be done, on their surpluses of grain you should add a further clause to the resolution saying that you would pay storage on any surplus over 47 million bushels of wheat at August 1 which is the average carryover in the last 20-year period. Pay farm storage. It would give some encouragement to farmers to keep their grain on the farms in the expectation that they would be able to sell it instead of having them feed
86	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue it to livestock with the most devastating results that are bound to follow.
What is the government doing? Net Canadian exports are now running less than 200 million bushels. The government is doing nothing for the farmers. I attended a great many farm meetings last fall, mass meetings called by farmers' union organizations and others.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I attended several meetings on the prairies myself.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have yet to meet one farmer in western Canada, outside Liberal party politicians, who is in favour of the bank loan legislation. The farmers want advance payments. They want advance payments as of right. They want advance payments without interest. They think that after they have spent a year's effort on their farms and have produced a crop they should not have to pay interest on their cash asset.
The farmers of western Canada unanimously support cash advances on farm-stored grain, the very thing embodied in the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). We in the C.C.F. are not recent converts to the proposition that an advance of 75 per cent of the initial price should be paid on farm stored grain. On December 3, 1951, I moved exactly the same resolution in this house in precisely the same terms. If that resolution had been accepted by the government in 1951 and legislation placed on the statute books of the nation, we would not be facing the crisis in western Canada that we are facing at the present time.
What about these guaranteed bank loans? The farmer with thousands of bushels of wheat in his yard has to go cap in hand to the bank as a beggar and plead for a loan. He does not go there with any right to a loan. He does not go there with any right to a loan of even one dollar. What the banker will say to him that morning depends on how the banker feels. As related to me, the general practice the banks of western Canada are following is that first of all they ascertain whether or not the farmer has $3,000 worth of grain on his farm and then they say that half of the value of that grain is $1,500. They then find out if he has sold any grain, flax or anything else. Then they take from the $1,500 the value of the grain he has already sold since the first of August. Then they ask him if he owes any taxes and whether the municipality is collecting those taxes by way of seizure of proceeds at the elevators. They take the value of his unpaid taxes from the $1,500 and in other cases the bankers are 

saying to the farmers: "If you are in arrears to the bank already to the extent of $500, we will take that off too."


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have no right to do that. They are not doing it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says they have no right to do that. I say to him that the banker has a right to say no to every farmer who walks into his office under this legislation, because the banker has all the rights and the farmer has none. Even the bankers do not like the legislation either. They think it is poor or loose banking practice for the minister to suggest what in their opinion may not be very good loans. The bankers are not happy about the situation. The elevator agents are not happy about it. The farmers wanted advances through the wheat board and the elevator system. They wanted to go to their elevator agent and to get an advance from the elevator agent and they wanted to get it without interest. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said: "Oh no, you cannot do it that way. After all, the elevator agents are not used to the banking business; . they are not accustomed to making loans; they have not sufficient ability to make loans of this kind". But since the legislation was announced, a few weeks later, I noticed that apparently the elevator agents in western Canada in the meantime had acquired a great deal of ability because they are being held responsible for collecting the loans. From any experience that I have had, it is much easier to lend money than it is to collect it. While not having enough ability to make loans, the elevator agents in western Canada personally are being held responsible for sending the cash tickets to the bank whenever the farmer draws in a load of grain, if he has received one of these bank loans. The farmers in western Canada are unanimously opposed to this kind of legislation. It is wrong in principle. The farmer should not be obliged to pay interest on his own money. It is wrong that he should not be able to obtain some money as of right. Hence I again emphasize the necessity, even at this late date, of the government's bringing in legislation to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain.
The great job ahead is to move the grain finally. We cannot leave it on the farms indefinitely. We cannot leave it in our elevator systems indefinitely. After a number of years its value will deteriorate. No matter who is paying for it, the value of it will be eaten up in storage costs. In some of the annexes on the prairies-and I have seen many of them-there has been definite widespread spoilage. If we are going to maintain the value of our investment, we must

move our grain. The private grain trade- the grain exchange-and all those opposed to the Canadian wheat board are saying to the western farmers: "Drop the price of wheat and it will move". I think that is a fallacy.
I do not think that the dropping of the price of Canadian wheat by 25 cents a bushel or 50 cents a bushel would move any more of it. Perhaps it would not move even a bushel more. Why would it move any more wheat? Our wheat is already being offered at a low price. As a matter of fact, the wheat producers in Canada are now being paid the lowest price for wheat paid to producers anywhere in the world. The United States farmer gets $2.08 a bushel. The Argentine farmer gets $2.72 a bushel. The United Kingdom farmer gets $2.24 a bushel. The farmer in France gets $2.61 a bushel. The farmer in Switzerland gets over $4.00 a bushel, and up to $4.50 is paid to the farmer in Chile. Does anybody think that by dropping the price of Canadian wheat you are going to sell any more of it? If they think that, they are not acquainted with the facts.
What action does the government take? What does it do about the situation? It makes trips to Washington. That is about all it does. It goes down there and says to the United States government: "We do not like your policy; it is a give-away program and gifts are bad. Your program is doing us a great deal of harm". They complain. Yet the United States program is not just a give-away program. It has many other aspects. They accept local currency; they will make barter deals, long-term contracts and so forth. Giving away is only one small part of it. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce against giving wheat away, I wonder. I do not think so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; not to countries that need gifts of wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is not even against Canadian wheat being given away.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is so much in favour of Canadian wheat being given away that I am sure he was highly pleased in the four years between April, 1948 and March, 1952 when $490,700,000 worth of Canadian bread grains was given away. That was wonderful. Our wheat was being given away at the rate of $122 J million a year and the minister said, "It is wonderful. The Americans are paying for it". When our wheat was being given away under the Marshall plan in that four-year period, what did the government do? "Oh," they said, "we are selling Canadian wheat; you see we have a good Liberal government in Canada that has
The Address-Mr. Argue found markets for Canadian wheat and we are paying you in good hard Canadian dollars". It took all the credit for the United States give-away program which was giving Canadian wheat away and paying for it in United States dollars. Now the United States have decided that they are going to continue some gifts of wheat but when they give wheat away, they are going to give away some of their own wheat instead of going to another nation, buying wheat and giving it away. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of the government go down to Washington to talk to Mr. Benson and President Eisenhower, they shed gallons of crocodile tears about the United States give-away program, but they were perfectly happy to take credit for the United States give-away program from 1948 to 1952 when they were giving away Canadian wheat and paying for it in United States dollars.
In the present situation in the United States I think the United States policy is sensible.
I think it is the only policy the United States government can follow at this time. Instead of going to Washington and saying to the Americans, "You are doing the wrong thing and you should stop it," I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should say to them, "With regard to wheat you have a surplus problem and we have a surplus problem. We want to get together to adopt a common policy to solve our mutual problem and we are prepared to adopt even some of the measures that you have adopted since those measures are proving to be successful". These measures include accepting local currency and making barter deals.
The Canadian government has only one policy, namely cash on the line. Most nations in the world have not Canadian dollars; they have not our kind of money. Hence they are unable to buy the wheat we have to sell when we offer them wheat and accept only dollars in return. The other nations of the world are not doing that. The other nations of the world are willing to sell wheat on the various bases to which I have referred. The strange part of it is that these unorthodox methods are working for all the other exporting nations. For the crop year which just ended Canada was the only country of the four major exporting countries of the world that lost exports. Our exports dropped from 255 million bushels to 251 million bushels. United States exports went up from 211 million bushels to 276 million bushels. Argentine exports went up from 110 million bushels to 134 million bushels and Australian exports went up from 63 million bushels to 94 million bushels. That program of accepting local currency, of barter arrangements and gifts, is
88	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue working for every other exporting country in the world and is helping them to increase their sales and pay their farmers good prices. Only the Canadian government is sitting back with a dog in the manger policy, unwilling to look at the situation with an open mind, unwilling to make any changes in policy, and rapidly losing Canada's position in the markets of the world. The fact that our sales have dropped and are dropping from 385 million bushels, export, in the year 1952-53, to a rate today running at less than 200 million bushels is appalling and a disgrace. I ask the government to undertake these further measures to see that Canadian sales and Canadian exports of wheat are improved before there is any further deterioration in the markets for Canadian wheat or any further deterioration in the position of agriculture in the west.
The government has a big budget. There is nearly $2 billion budget for defence. Let no one say there is no place to get the money to buy up the necessary surplus grain and send it to the nations of the world who need it. It is still true that two-thirds of the people of the world are undernourished. The food and agriculture organization reports make that statement. I feel we would be doing more to protect democracy, doing more to build good will if we were to concentrate on a program of economic assistance rather than concentrate almost wholly as we are now doing on the building of armaments.
I should like to see a very large program of economic development and economic assistance. I should like to see the Canadian government establish a big fund to help develop the underdeveloped countries.
With our defence budget of $2 billion, with our gross national product running at over $26 billion, I am suggesting that an economic development fund of $1 billion would not be too high and would be a very small price to pay for the beneficial results that would flow in building good will for Canada, good will for democracy, good will for the west and in solving, as it would, the burdensome surplus of agricultural products. This situation is more serious on the prairies than it is in other parts of Canada. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I ask the other members of^ the cabinet to remember that the people in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are Canadians too and that they should be entitled to the same economic standard of living as that available to Canadians in other provinces.
I ask this government to come to the assistance now of its fellow Canadians in the three prairie provinces. If it does not do


that, agriculture will deteriorate even further on the prairies and it will deteriorate further across Canada. It will be in danger of being crippled, perhaps permanently. I ask this government now, during this session, not to stand idly by any longer while the agricultural industry of this nation is being destroyed.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: I should like first of all, Mr. Speaker, to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Lafiamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) has already made an excellent contribution to this house in so many respects, and we on this side of the house rejoice very much in having her as one of us. Her long experience in municipal and public affairs before she came to this house has made her a very valued member of parliament and one whose advice and assistance it is a privilege to share. She has an astute and an unusually clear and analytical mind. I am sure that she will make a very great contribution to public life.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lafiamme) has already acquitted himself well in his maiden speech. He, too, has shown marked ability. I know he will be a worthy addition to this house and we are very happy to welcome him to this corner of the house.
Some weeks ago I was interviewed by officials of the Y.M. and Y.W.C.A. and the recreational association at Brantford respecting a study of the physical fitness of the young people of Canada. They drew to my attention certain newspaper articles, and articles in magazines, and told me what they knew from their own experience about the apparent rapid decline in physical fitness amongst our youth. I was very much interested, Mr. Speaker, in what these young men told me.
I was sufficiently interested to read a little bit about this subject since I was approached and I decided I ought to bring the matter to the attention of the House of Commons at this time.
Last year a nation-wide survey was conducted by Sports' College which is a non-profit organization devoted to educational services through research to provide information in the fields of sports, health and physical fitness. Sports College discovered that only one in six Canadians has even a minimum of physical fitness. The survey covered a sample group of some 51,000 Canadians from 14 to 50 years of age. It was found that only 13-2 per cent of Canadian males and only 27 [DOT] 2 per cent of females could pass simple tests in physical fitness. Ontario showed the lowest physical fitness standard of any province in Canada, where only 10-3 per cent

passed the test. In British Columbia 34-8 per cent passed; 29-5 per cent in Manitoba and 14-8 per cent in Quebec. Sedentary workers had the lowest physical fitness rate of any vocational group and heavy physical workers the highest. Only 17-8 per cent of executives passed the tests and only 12 per cent of students.
It was found in the survey that the youth of Canada is decidedly unfit. Only 14 per cent passed the minimum tests. Rural people far outclassed city dwellers in fitness levels, and towns and villages were well ahead of the cities. But on the whole out of a total of 51,555 Canadians tested only 8,532 or 16-6 per cent passed the tests.
Now, I understand that by physical fitness is meant functional efficiency or ability adequate to handle daily work and recreational loads without undue fatigue and with sufficient reserve for physical emergencies and special stresses.
Being physically fit means being able to carry on comfortably the normal daily activities of life, with a reserve for any emergency that might arise and to be able to recuperate without undue effort.
For many reasons I feel that I am one of the last members in this house who should raise this matter, perhaps because of previous lack of knowledge of the subject on my part. Mr. Speaker, never having known what it was to be underweight at all, perhaps I should not embark on a subject of this kind. But just as a man who occasionally drinks too much might possibly be a good temperance lecturer, I decided to brave speaking on this particular subject.
The reason for our low standard of physical fitness is, of course, our high standard of living. The very same situation that exists in Canada today exists in the United States, and I imagine that their figures might be even a little worse than ours. They have alarmed the President of the United States, and before he was taken ill with this unfortunate heart attack he had called a meeting at Denver of recreational groups throughout the United States to advise him as to what to do to stem the tide of physical unfitness. However, my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, are nevertheless wholly confined to Canada.
The relatively poor showing made by Canadians at the British Empire games at Vancouver in the summer of 1954 served to focus attention on the state of physical fitness in Canada. I am told that many of our contestants at running, swimming and jumping were unable to finish the course and were among the first to give up. To contest
The Address-Mr. J. E. Brown successfully in these sports requires endurance and stamina to a marked degree, and endurance and stamina in persons are developed by physical fitness.
Physical fitness tests made in Europe show that European people are far ahead of Canadians. In tests made there only 8-7 per cent of European youngsters failed. In certain strength tests made in the United States 35-7 per cent of the children failed, but only 1 [DOT] 1 per cent of European youngsters failed in the same tests. In Austria and Switzerland, only -5 per cent of the youngsters failed. I am satisfied that European nations have Canada badly beaten in the matter of physical fitness.
The local recreational leaders of Brantford emphasized to me that there was no over-all policy or leadership in the field of physical fitness. Individual athletic groups can work only among their own organizations, and I was told there was no over-all leadership and no over-all direction. In the past in Canada boys obtained sufficient exercise at home doing the chores, but in the mechanized age in which we live they do not get this type of exercise. The only exercise that they receive is exercise under supervision. As I see it, the problem is going to get worse instead of better in all age groups, particularly as the need for constructive use of leisure time becomes more and more important. The recreational directors federation of Ontario suggested a royal commission should investigate the state of physical fitness in Canada and the constructive use of leisure time. It was thought that a royal commission would take a broad view of the subject rather than look at the situation from the particular point of view of any sport. It might be well worth while for the government to consider such a matter.
I know that the government, and particularly the Department of National Health and Welfare, is not unaware of this situation regarding physical fitness. I have read the excellent speech of the parliamentary assistant to the minister which was made at the time of the British Empire games. In that speech he referred to many of the points which I have mentioned this morning.
Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: If I appear to be reluctant to grant the hon. member's request it is because we all realize that in a debate where a time limit has been placed, we must save every minute.
At one o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. J. E. Brown
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker,
before the one o'clock adjournment I was drawing the attention of hon. members to the state of physical fitness of the Canadian people, in particular the young people of Canada. I had given to the house some figures and statistics published in sports magazines and elsewhere which showed a surprising decline in the state of physical fitness among Canadians. These statistics show that we have a situation where one-sixth of the Canadian people only are what could be called physically fit.
I pointed out that fortunately one does not have to be an athlete to be physically fit but merely able' to discharge the normal daily activities which are the lot of the average Canadian with a certain reserve for emergencies and special effort. It was found that Canadians sadly lagged behind the European nations in this regard, a situation which should not exist at all.
This is an Olympic year and I wonder how Canada will do at the Olympic games. I read the other day that Russia has four million men in training from which will be selected the teams to contest the Olympic games. Of course this is done to show the world what can be done by communism. Therefore physical fitness is an important matter, I believe a vitally important matter when one remembers the number of rejects for military service at the time of the last war on the ground of physical unfitness. I wonder what would be the number of rejects in a similar emergency today. Not only is this a matter of health, I believe it is also a matter of national defence and is truly a part of our fight for democracy.
That is why I believe that physical fitness is more than a provincial matter. Undoubtedly it is a provincial matter, but I believe it is also a national issue. No one regrets more than I that the National Physical Fitness Act was repealed last year in this house, apparently without protest. I take my full share of the blame for giving the impression abroad that we members of parliament were not interested. As a matter of fact I hope that some day we will have a new act because I believe this house is composed of members who are most interested. I believe that our Department of National Health and Welfare, headed by its outstanding minister, will take another look at the subject of physical fitness in Canada. If the figures which I have given today are correct, then I think we are faced with a rather disgraceful situation.
I do not think for one moment that the government will stand idly by; certainly the


Department of National Health and Welfare will not stand idly by, nor will the members of this house stand idly by and allow the communist countries to train their youth in the way that they are or that they say they are, to be supermen, and then have us preside over what sports editors are calling a nation of jellyfish. I do not think that that situation will be permitted at all.
Before closing my remarks in English, and while on the subject of health in general, may I say also that many Liberal members of parliament are looking forward to federal participation in some sort of national health insurance scheme. Of course health insurance is also a provincial matter, but its standardization across the country needs the participation of the federal government and the federal parliament. We wish the dominion-provincial conference opening on January 23 every success. I am happy to note that the federal-provincial conference of October of last year set up a committee composed of ministers from all the governments in Canada to consider a health insurance program and that the work of the committee is well under way. Not only the people of Brantford but the people of Canada await the day when all Canadians will benefit from this long-anticipated social measure, to which I believe everyone will be willing to contribute.
Before resuming my seat I should like to say a few words in the beautiful language of my French-speaking colleagues with whom it is a great privilege to speak in this house.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, many of us who come from areas of Canada where English is the only language spoken look for a chance at least to try using the other official language of the country which is spoken by so many eminent members of this house. A vast majority of the population of Brantford speaks English, but I should not like to miss this opportunity of extending the regards of my constituents to their fellow citizens of the various parts of French-speaking Canada.
Some years ago, there were hardly any families in Brantford who knew French. At that time, my wife and I were meeting with a very small group of persons interested in learning that language. The group held no regular meetings but got together in the homes of the various members and spent charming and memorable evenings.
Today, the situation is entirely different. There are in Brantford quite a number of families that speak French and often we hear that language spoken on the street.

However, the greatest change occurred among the English-speaking people of Brantford. Over the last few years an impressive number of our people have shown a deep interest in the French language. My wife is a member of the university women's club. This club has a French conversation group which meets every Wednesday evening at the home of one of its many members. Meetings have even been held in my own home. At each of these meetings these ladies speak nothing but French. They read French books, carry on discussions in French and study the language with the competent assistance of a French teacher. All have become quite versed in French as they could well prove if they were allowed to speak in this house.
There are evening classes in French at the Collegiate Institute. These courses are naturally followed by adults. They are very successful and a large number of young and old people attend them.
What a change! I am told that what is happening in Brantford is happening throughout Ontario. That is a new and splendid development. It will contribute mightily to national unity. Still, as far as I have been able to see, the French and English-speaking people of this country have always been remarkably united. This new development, this new interest in the French language, will greatly assist us, I am sure, in understanding each other better than at any time throughout our long and happy history of common life in Canada.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, first may I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Then may I turn my attention to what unquestionably is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems confronting the Canadian nation at the present time, namely, the question of surplus wheat, which has already been dealt with most ably by several speakers who have preceded me.
In my opinion and, I believe, in the opinion of practically everyone in my constituency, the government's wheat policy is regrettably inadequate. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture ought to be downright ashamed of themselves for inflicting upon the splendid wheat growing communities of Canada treatment the like of which is not to be found in any other nation in the world today. Every other nation that even pretends to be enlightened indicates at least elementary knowledge of how to appreciate its wheat growers.
Take, for example, France. Last year France exported about 92 million bushels of
The Address-Mr. Blackmore wheat. On every bushel of it she paid about $1.30 a bushel as an export subsidy, which means that that wheat went on the world's markets at $1.30 a bushel cheaper than it would otherwise have gone on the markets. That is a most serious matter. That French wheat was soft wheat at that, while the Canadian wheat in the main is the finest wheat produced on the globe.
Take the United States. At about the end of November 1955 a farmer near Bismarck, North Dakota, raising 5,000 bushels of No. 1 northern wheat on 250 acres could obtain on every bushel of his entire crop, stored right on his farm, a government loan of $2.10 a bushel, receiving $10,500 for his 5,000 bushel crop. When that loan matures, he will be free to let the wheat go to the government as full repayment of the loan. Contrast that with the contemptible thing that was offered to the Canadian farmers-


Mr. Siuder:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Irvin William Studer: What commitments did that farmer at Bismarck have to make before he was eligible for the loan? He had to vote for and agree to a reduction in acreage. Is that what the hon. member recommends?


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member will
let me finish my speech, he will not be getting up and making stupid remarks which he will probably have to retract later on. Don't let the hon. member run away with the idea that the hon. member for Lethbridge does not know wheat and the wheat situation just as well as he does.


Irvin William Studer: Where do you sell your wheat?


John Horne Blackmore: As I was saying, that is
the situation. It was no new thing in 1954. Every farmer in the United States then could put his grain into farm storage and receive $2.21 a bushel. At that time he did not have to make any commitments such as the hon. member for Swift Current infers. But the simple fact is that this was the situation which confronted the ordinary producer of wheat in the United States. Now, once the United States government takes that wheat into its possession, it may keep it or it may dispose of it through export subsidy, acceptance of foreign currencies, gifts or whatever other device may be found necessary to dispose of that wheat.
In Canada we have what amounts to a declaration from the Minister of Trade and Commerce that no such devices will be used to help dispose of Canadian wheat, even if the farmers in the three prairie provinces starve to death. That is not a very pleasant
92	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore thing, but we have to face facts just as they are, take off the gloves and call aces aces and spades spades.


Irvin William Studer: Then state the facts.


John Horne Blackmore: 
It might be well to stop to comment for a minute or two on the importance of first-class storage. If storage is going to be suitable it must be constructed in such a way as to be able to turn aside all kinds of weather. It must be such that it can be aerated. It must be such that it will keep the birds and mice out, keep the cows out in case a mishap occurs, and the horses, the pigs and the chickens, which means that anyone who must put up temporary and inadequate shacks in which to store his grain is going to lose heavily. I am told that in the United States the storage is the very finest kind that can be provided.
I do not propose to go any further into the general aspects of the situation. I propose to canvass the prospects for the future of our Canadian farmers. Those prospects are far from rosy. We live in a world that is new and strange to us, a world that is full of change. If the whole nation works together, even then the risk and the danger will be sufficient. If one group of citizens has to work alone and absorb the impact of these changed conditions I think everyone must recognize the outrage that is being committed against those citizens who must so do.
We must note carefully and carefully appraise each of the many determining factors in the situation surrounding us. May I mention several of those and comment briefly on each one of them? There is in the world a vast amount of human need, as everyone in the house fully knows, wants of people who lack the money with which to buy. At least
1.400	million people go to bed hungry every night, all lacking money to buy. All of this need constitutes enormous potential markets. Everybody recognizes that those markets are available as soon as western statesmen get together and discover a suitable system of distribution.
The all-important thing is that we have not heard a word of western statesmen, if you can call them that, ever getting together and finding a suitable method of distribution. No matter what the FAO tells us is the condition, no matter how much pious longing is expressed, the simple fact is that when they come back here and report they report absolutely nothing concrete. We are still going on under the same system with which we tried to get along 50 years ago.
All round the earth the needs of humanity are increasing rapidly because, first, of the growth of population which is great and, second, the ever-expanding and rising standard of living made possible through scientific discovery. Not only should these
1.400	million people who go to bed hungry

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
every night have their hunger appeased but they should have decent houses in which to live. They should be able to have refrigerators, deepfreezers, and up-to-date facilities for toilets and 'the like in the same way that we do. For certain it is being borne in on them that all men are brothers in this world, and if we do not behave as though we are brothers we are facing some real trouble before too long.
This state of affairs simply demands more and more production, not a limiting of production. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) referred to the reduction of acreage in the United States.
I regret that, and I maintain that the United States in reducing their acreage instead of finding an adequate way in which to distribute their grain has committed an unethical act against the other nations of the world, and so shall we if we limit production. Of course we may be forced to do that because we just have not the plain common sense to do anything else, but we will not be discharging our responsibility if we do so.
There is an ever-increasing potential human demand, a demand in terms of need, for greater and greater production of all kinds of commodities by all peoples who have the resources with which to produce. There is implicit in what I have said a declaration of a responsibility resting upon us Canadians which we cannot escape and which we must discharge to our own children and grandchildren, a responsibility we simply must assume in the matter of producing all kinds of grain and especially wheat, food for the world.
The great Creator undoubtedly designed this vast land as a veritable ever normal granary for producing foods of all kinds. Imagine the inadequacy of a generation of Canadians who, because they have not sense enough to devise a way to distribute the goods, stop producing them and leave unused the great wheat-producing areas of our western plains and in other parts of the country for the production of almost every kind of human food. Food we must produce for the teeming millions unable to produce the grains they need.
We forget that we have here a vast area with very few people in it. Oh, we are aware of it in a general sort of way but right down inside ourselves we forget that because we possess this vast area with very few people, while there are areas where there are almost unbelievably many people crowded into a square mile, it becomes our duty to help produce food for those who are restricted in their resources.
The second general fact facing us is that many of our farmers-in fact all our farmers -will find their markets becoming less and less available largely because the nations that used to buy our wheat are finding their difficulties increasing which are making it-


Mr. MacDougall:: I am sorry if I bothered the hon. member who is speaking.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope the hon. member is finished with his conversation. No comment is necessary, I think. Many of the nations are finding the difficulties of international trade such that they do not dare risk trying to sell enough of the goods they can produce for enough foreign exchange to buy the wheat they need. These nations are feeling a more and more pressing urge to produce their own wheat. For example, in the period 1935-39 France imported an average of 2-5 million bushels annually. That was a chance for us to sell wheat. But last year she exported 92 million bushels, as I have indicated.
Why has France changed from an importer of wheat to an exporter of wheat? She has changed simply because she has discovered that no longer is there a certain market for most of the commodities which she has produced over the years. Consequently she has no assurance whatsoever that she is going to be able to buy on the world's markets the wheat she needs. Hence she subsidizes the production of wheat in her own country. As a result, in good years she gets a great surplus which she must dispose of, as occurred last year when she exported 92 million bushels at prices which we could not begin to compete with.
I have dealt with the factor which involves the truth that so many of the nations which used to import, because of their difficulties, have now begun to produce their own and consequently are exporting. I now come to the third factor that faces us. That factor is this. It seems improbable that in the foreseeable future France and other nations in similar circumstances will change the pattern of production upon which they are now engaged, especially in connection with wheat. Scientific developments and the trading practices of the United States and certain other nations will compel nations to endeavour to become, as far as possible, more and more self-sufficient, especially in respect of foodstuffs, for the sake of their own self-defence and security.
The United States herself has done and is doing that very thing. They will do this much as Canada has been doing in respect of rubber. Formerly, we produced no rubber in Canada. We bought our rubber from Malaya. We now in large measure produce
94	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore our own rubber. Thus Malaya is deprived of the means of buying wheat, from us and we are deprived of a market. Will anyone in this house, or would anyone in authority throughout this country, advocate that we discontinue the production of rubber in Canada and run the risk of being in a position such as that in which we found ourselves during the last war? Not a one.
So we are going to continue producing our own rubber. We are already producing much of our gas, oil and many other things that we need, and in due time we shall produce yet more and more of what we need so that we can be self-sufficient and shall not incur the danger of impossible adverse trade balances such as those we are now suffering from. This very tendency of various nations to produce within their own boundaries what they must have will prevent Canada herself from buying substantially more British goods and thus providing Britain with more Canadian dollars with which to purchase Canadian wheat.
I grow a little bit weary, Mr. Speaker, of listening to a good many of the members in the house railing at the government for inefficient methods of selling our wheat. I think many of those people who engage in that foolish talk would be well advised to give careful thought to what I have just been saying. It will not matter how much our government tries, or how many devices it uses to sell wheat in France; France for the present will not take our wheat any more. So it will be with a great many other nations that formerly were our markets for wheat.
The fourth factor of great importance is this. Wheat and grain production generally is likely to increase in areas having resources permitting grain production. Regardless of whether or not the United States limits acreage, whether we limit acreage or whether the world as a whole tries to limit acreage, we are going to have certain other considerations entering into the picture. For example, better varieties of grain are being discovered right along. Finer fertilizers are being perfected. Methods of insect control are being adopted as well as methods of weed control. Great improvements in machinery are taking place. Every one of those advances makes it possible, under ordinary conditions, to produce more grain on the same area of land. These factors are going to come into action still more in the future. We might as well face these facts rather than endeavour to live in a fool's paradise.
The fifth factor is this. Already embarrassing world supplies of wheat have been augmented by a 1955 world total production


of: 7,300 million bushels, compared with a 1945-49 average of 5,895 million bushels and a 1935-39 average of 6,085 million bushels. By reference to some of these figures of production we see that we have accumulated close to 1 billion bushels of surplus wheat in the world for 1955 alone. That does not indicate very much opportunity in the future for us to dispose of surpluses. Even if nations like France who formerly bought our wheat were to open their doors and again buy some of our wheat, we still should find nations like Australia, Argentina and others endeavouring to thrust their surpluses into the gap provided by France. This is another fact which we simply must recognize.
I come now to the sixth factor. The whole world at this moment waits under the shadow of unimaginable disaster through nuclear warfare. Everyone in the country realizes that fact. Would we not be wise to store up a quantity of the grain which we possess against a time when dangers which we have no way of avoiding might more or less wholly impair much of our land for production for two or three years? If such a disaster were to come upon our children, how improvident they must consider us to have been when they look back upon us and think of what we could have done for them, but did not do, just because we did not have the sense to do it.
Then there is the seventh factor. Up to this present moment the so-called free nations, whether through unpardonable ignorance, indifference, stupidity or mischievous influence, have stubbornly omitted to adopt any effective method of distribution either internally or internationally. I referred to that matter a moment ago. I thought the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) did very well last night in bringing to the attention of those who were in the house how utterly and contemptibly inadequate our financial thinking is when compared with our thinking in terms of producing and accomplishing all manner of things physically.
This matter just cannot be laughed off. We have grandchildren coming up and they will realize our utter inadequacy for the age in which we live. Why not do something about finding how to distribute? I am not insisting that we use the method I have in mind, the Social Credit system.,Let anyone who thinks he can distribute by any other means bring his plan forward; let us have something done.	.
These seven factors all tend to show, as I see it, that the farmers have no justification for expecting any change in the near future^ Meanwhile the grain of a great-many of them

is lying in elevators with mounting storage costs, which is another matter to which I believe far too little attention is given.
We come, now to a possible solution of the difficulty. Once more I should like to commend those who have spoken before me. Everywhere in Canada most unfortunately, and in the west as well, there prevails a vigorous divergence of opinion as to what should be done about our wheat problem. Government spokesmen, and I suppose their paid agents on the C.B.C. radio stations, have been dinning into people's ears the fact that the United States made a terrible mistake by encouraging production, treating her farmers well and all that sort of thing. They have argued that she has run into surpluses, so let us not do that. But they never tell us what to do. Apparently what is in their minds is that the thing to do is to turn all our farmers out on the prairie and say, "Root, hog, or die."
May I now, in deference and humility, suggest what appears to me to be the only principles upon which a really satisfactory solution of the surplus wheat problem can be based. In offering these proposals may I state that I am speaking for myself and not necessarily for the Social Credit group in this house or the Social Credit movement throughout Canada. I do not dare say that I speak entirely for even my constituents, because I have not been able to consult any large percentage of them to make sure what they think. When I have talked with them I have found they seem to be utterly at sea. They know something ought to be done, but they expect somebody higher up to tell them what should be done.
Two Social Credit conventions in the Lethbridge riding in the fall of 1955 approved these proposals I am about to give. I think others would have done so had they had the opportunity. Here are the four proposals. The first is the provision of adequate facilities for storing wheat oh each wheat growing farm. Without such provision it is rather unrealistic to talk about advances to farmers on farm-stored grain. Once we have adequate facilities that will turn the weather, turn the insects, turn the rodents, then we are able to proceed. That therefore is the first thing.
The second proposal is for immediate payment, not within the next five, six or seven months, on wheat stored on farms to cover full average costs of production plus a living allowance large enough to cover the average costs of carrying on. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that not less than 75 per cent of the price per bushel be paid. This was a good suggestion.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore My suggestion is probably just a little more flexible than that. I am not sure that 75 per cent of the price per bushel will cover the cost of production and give the producers sufficient to cover living costs. The hon. member's wording indicates that he feels as I do, about the. matter.
My third proposal is provision for the payment of storage on farm-stored wheat, such payment to be made in kind. The object of this policy would be ultimately to return to the wheat grower possession of the wheat stored on his farm, strictly on condition that the wheat grower would keep such paid for and returned to the farmer grain off the market until market conditions became favourable.
That may sound strange, but what it actually means is this. If the government buys the wheat on a man's farm and pays him for it, then the government could either adopt the policy the United States apparently has been following of continuing to pay money for storage on that wheat or it could say to the farmer, "Now, every year we have our grain in your bin we will pay you part of the grain back so that in due time you will own the grain and you will own the storage in which the grain is cared for." I propose the latter alternative.
Quite obviously, just as soon as the farmer owns the grain and the storage facility in which the grain is stored, then it will become his responsibility and his pleasure to take care of the grain without having storage paid on it. It is my judgment that if the United States were to adopt that one principle they would remove from the shoulders of the government a burden which is crushing them financially and in other ways.
Now, the fourth proposal is that the financing of all phases of this farm storage plan should be done through the Bank of Canada. I am sure the government believes that the Bank of Canada is a very stable institution. It should be the institution through which Canada could make financially possible what is physically possible. I favour calling upon the Bank of Canada to do its job. If it cannot do its job, I want to know why it cannot. I believe it can if properly managed. Consequently, the money which would be advanced to the farmer to build this approved storage would come qut of the Bank of Canada at an interest rate of not more than 1 [DOT] 5 per cent. The money to pay for the wheat would come out of the Bank of Canada.
In this case probably the government would have to borrow the money from the Bank of Canada and distribute it through the wheat board. There might be various technical means whereby the money could be issued
96	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore to the farmers, but the original money would come out of the Bank of Canada and not from the Canadian taxpayers. This is the money which would go to pay for the wheat. To pay for the storage as I have already suggested the government would simply begin turning back to the farmer the wheat it had already bought from him, so that ultimately he would own the storage, he would own the wheat, he would have been paid for the stored wheat and would be in a position to carry on in the future. The only restriction he would be under would be that he could not sell that grain unless conditions warranted it. Probably he would be required to receive a permit from those who would be administering the whole wheat situation.
Of interest to those seeking a solution to the problem of the present glut of wheat in Canada will be a Canadian Press report of a statement on the subject issued by Premier Manning of Alberta. Let me read the report which appeared in the Lethbridge Herald of December 22, 1955. I am not sure I shall have time to read all of it. It is headed, "Two-Price System to Solve Glut-Manning's Plan", and is written by Phil Adler, Canadian Press staff writer:
Two methods of solving the problem of surplus grain on the prairies were suggested Wednesday by Premier E. C. Manning of Alberta.
He said in an interview that Canada should accept soft currency for wheat or negotiate new trade agreements by extending credit through the Bank of Canada.
The farm-born premier who grows grain and raises 110 head of cattle on his 300-acre farm near Edmonton also advocated establishment of a federal grain bank "to meet fluctuating conditions" and spoke in favour of a two-price system for wheat.
Mr. Manning, Social Credit premier of a province which produced 133,000,000 bushels of wheat this year, said the grain surplus was a long-range problem which cannot be solved by interim measures. But interim measures were necessary.
Soft currency should be accepted up to a "reasonable" amount, the amount depending on the economic status of the country concerned. He said convertibility of all the soft currency would not be necessary providing the agreement was made on "specific terms" which would give Canada "prior preferred rates" on the country's exports. Wider trade with other countries would result.
Write Off Advances
Dealing with extension of credit through the Bank of Canada, Mr. Manning said no one will suffer if credit advances were written off.
"The farmer will be paid in full for his grain," he said. "The Canadian economy will benefit from the farmer's spending."
The whole economy of the country was based on buoyant agriculture economy.
New trade agreements should vary from other contracts. Canada should take from the wheatbuying country any goods economically possible for the country to export, providing the goods would not disrupt Canadian trade.
Speaking of the intangible benefits of selling wheat to needy countries, Mr. Manning said "it will go a long way to break down conditions which cause communism."


He said costly war materials made from resources which cannot be replaced are written off whereas food comes from a source which continues to produce.
The premier said there was "strong justification" for a two-price system for wheat. The domestic price "should and can be controlled in fairness to economy" and the export price should be the best possible.
He also said the federal government "would be well advised" to establish a grain bank to ,meet fluctuating conditions caused by war, crop failure and the like.
I do not pretend that Mr. Manning had in mind the proposals I have offered, but I think almost anyone will notice there is a sort of similarity between the two. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we adopt a method of that sort we shall not be sitting by watching the farmers being driven off their land. That is exactly what is happening today. The government is supinely sitting here under the ivory towers while farmers with their grain in storage are having the price of that grain eaten up by storage rates until they have nothing left with which to discharge the responsibilities they have to enter into in respect of their farms, until the first thing we know one farmer moves out and another one moves in. In other words the farms are seized, not by the government but other people, some of those whom the government permits to do the job. Communism hardly does any worse than that.
Imagine the outrageous injustice. Men who have been on the land for 30, 40 or 50 years and have built up homes, find themselves driven from their homes not through any inefficiency on their part, or any imprudence whatsoever, but by a set of circumstances over which they could exercise no more control than they could over the sun; and all this is permitted by a government that pretends to be the friend of the farmers and pretends to be giving Canada good government.
While the suggestions I have outlined may not commend themselves to every hon. member, I think every hon. member will realize they have some chance of solving the problem which now confronts us.


Mr. A. M. Fraser (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to associate myself with all the previous speakers in extending very hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) on the excellent quality of the speeches in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I felt it was singularly appropriate that the hon. member for Timiskaming should move the address in reply to the speech from the

throne in which the government indicated its intention to extend the principle of equal pay for equal work to women employed in all occupations under federal jurisdiction, a principle which she and the other women members of the house have consistently advocated.
I would like also to congratulate the Prime Minister and the cabinet on their positive and constructive approach to the problems which Canada is facing at home and abroad. This approach is fairly reflected in the policies outlined in the speech from the throne.
First, as regards external policy: Canada, I am sure we will all agree, has an enviable reputation in world affairs, thanks in large measure to the skill and devotion of our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) whose constant efforts in the cause of peace have won for him the gratitude and admiration of the whole free world.
It is clear from the speech from the throne that the government is taking a realistic view of the dangers implicit in the international situation. As the speech states, the government remains "convinced of the need to maintain the defences of a free world as a deterrent to war."
In particular, I find myself in entire agreement with the government on the great importance which it attaches, and rightly, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have always regarded NATO as essential to the security of the Atlantic community. My conviction in that respect has been strengthened by the opportunity I had last year to see something of the work of NATO at first hand. Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, I was privileged to be one of the group of Canadian parliamentarians to attend the NATO parliamentary meetings in Paris last July. We had the great privilege of receiving briefings from Lord Ismay and other senior officials at Palais de Chaillot, and from General Gruenther, Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery and other high-ranking officers at SHAPE at Fontainebleau.
This authoritative exposition of the aims and methods of NATO convinced me that this great defensive organization has achieved a degree of military integration among free nations unprecedented in time of peace.
Our subsequent visit to the the Canadian army and air force bases in France and West Germany enabled us to see for ourselves the truly magnificent contribution which Canada is making to the NATO defence system. We all came away, I am sure, deeply impressed by the high morale of the Canadian forces and the excellence of their equipment. Not 67509-7
The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser only were those service men and women helping to defend the frontiers of freedom in western Europe, but they were on the best of terms with the local people among whom they lived. They were Canadian ambassadors of good will, imparting a better understanding of the Canadian way of life and obtaining in return a fuller knowledge of Europe and its peoples, a knowledge and a sympathy which they will carry back with them to Canada. The long-run effects of this mutual understanding will be of incalculable value. Canada has every reason to be proud of her contribution to NATO.
The primary purpose of NATO is, of course, to deter aggression, but it is important that NATO be more than a military alliance. The NATO nations have developed a common defence policy, but if NATO is to continue strong, if it is to attain its full potentialities for good, this collective defence system must be buttressed by co-ordinated action to achieve economic expansion and greater social welfare.
This, I believe, is especially vital in the present phase of competitive coexistence when the struggle between the free world and the communist bloc is being waged more and more clearly in the economic field. Moreover, increased emphasis by the NATO countries on economic, social and cultural co-operation would go a long way to combat the pernicious propaganda of the communists that .NATO is merely an aggressive alliance. I would therefore urge the government to continue and, indeed, intensify its efforts to persuade the other NATO governments to implement article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
As the speech from the throne so truly says, "security cannot rest on arms alone". The house, I am sure, will support the sincere and unremitting efforts which the government is making to improve international understanding, both by means of diplomatic negotiation and through the medium of the United Nations.
In particular we have all been thrilled by the initiative which Canada took at the recent session of the general assembly of the United Nations. And here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my warm admiration for the outstanding success achieved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the other members of the Canadian delegation. By their tireless efforts and patient negotiation 16 new member countries have been admitted to the United Nations. As a result that organization has become more truly representative of world opinion than ever before, a fact which cannot fail

The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser to increase its effectiveness, particularly in the economic and social fields. The admission of the new members was indeed a resounding victory for the cause of international co-operation.
The government has given further proof of its constructive approach to world problems by its decision to continue and to increase its contribution to the Colombo plan. This decision I am confident will have the wholehearted approval of this house. It is a decision inspired by a genuine desire to help the peoples of the economically undeveloped countries of Asia to help themselves to attain a higher standard of living. It is inspired also by enlightened self-interest, since experience has shown us that the more widespread prosperity is throughout the world the more prosperous we ourselves will be. It is inspired also by the belief that economic aid and technical assistance to the peoples of less developed countries will reduce the danger of war. The more healthy the economy of a country, the less likely it is to fall victim to external attack or internal subversion. Thus the Colombo plan and other similar projects diminish the area of potential conflict and thereby serve the cause of peace.
I turn now to some of the internal features of the speech from the throne. As it points out, the past year has on the whole been a prosperous one for Canada despite the serious marketing difficulties encountered by our great agricultural industry, particularly our wheat farmers. The year 1955 has been the most productive year in Canadian history. Our export trade has been greater than ever before. More Canadians have been gainfully employed than ever before. I am confident that the house and the country will derive great satisfaction from these striking proofs of the essential soundness and indeed the dynamic character of our economy.
I have very happy to be able to state that Newfoundland has shared in this prosperity. There were unfortunately some weak spots, particularly in certain sections of our fishing industry, but throughout Newfoundland as a whole the record economic level of 1954 was well maintained in 1955 and may even have been surpassed. Production in two of our basic industries, namely, forest products and mining, was at a record height. Construction operations continued at a highly satisfactory rate. The average level of personal income increased. The premier of Newfoundland, Hon. J. R. Smallwood, in his new year's message described the year just ended as the most prosperous in all our history.
In the riding of St. John's East, which I have the honour to represent in this house,


economic conditions were very good indeed. At this point I would like to make a special reference to Bell island, the great iron mining centre which contributes so much to the economic stability of my riding. The year 1955 was a most important year in the history of the iron isle for it witnessed the completion of a new conveyor system and the erection of a new ore concentrator. These improvements represent the climax of the great mechanization program which the Dominion Wabana Ore company has been carrying out over the past several years. Since 1949 the company has spent a total of $19 million on the procurement and installation of the most modem equipment for the production, concentration and transportation of its product.
The company has firm contracts for the annual delivery of one million tons of iron ore to the United Kingdom and another one million tons to West Germany. Both contracts extend through 1961. Together with its deliveries to the Dosco steel plant at Sydney, Nova Scotia, these contracts provide Bell island with an assured annual market for three million tons of iron ore before concentration.
While I am on the subject of Bell island I should like to remind hon. members of the privations suffered by the 11,000 residents there in April of last year as a result of the prolonged ice blockade which cut them off from supplies from the mainland for a period of two weeks. That dangerous experience has demonstrated the urgent need for the construction of an airstrip on Bell island. I am happy to say that negotiations have been going on for some time among the federal government, the provincial government and Dominion Wabana Ore Limited for the construction of an airstrip. I trust that these negotiations will be pressed forward to a speedy and successful conclusion so that a recurrence of last year's isolation will be prevented.
I feel very strongly also that the time has now come for the erection of a federal public building at Bell island. Important federal functions are discharged there by three departments of our federal government, namely post office, customs and the Department of Transport. At present the officials of these departments have to do their work in the provincial public building in offices rented from the provincial government, offices which are quite inadequate to their needs. I would therefore urge most strongly that the government take immediate steps to remedy this situation by providing this great industrial community with a federal public buliding.
While I am on the subject of public buildings, I trust that the construction of the new

customs building scheduled for St. John's will be proceeded with this year.
A few minutes ago I referred to the fact that 1955 was a good year for the people of Newfoundland. Nevertheless the average personal income of Newfoundlanders is still far below the Canadian national average. Indeed it amounts to only about half the national average, according to the submission of the government of the province to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. At page 122 the Newfoundland government stated that in St. John's proper there are 308 "condemnable" houses. It added, and I quote:
These are shocking, run-down tenements In slum areas which should have been tom down long ago. There are another 350 to 400 houses which are only slightly better and which will be condemned when the "condemnable" houses are finally removed.
The submission points out that these figures are based on only a partial survey of the area within the city limits of St. John's. It estimates that in the whole of the St. John's area there are over 1,000 houses which should be condemned now. Hon. members will therefore readily understand why the people of St. John's will welcome the far-seeing amendments which the government is proposing to its great National Housing Act.
I wish also to congratulate the government on the arrangement it has proposed to the provincial governments for sharing the costs of assistance to those unemployed persons who are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and who are in need. Under this arrangement the federal government will assume half those costs after the number of unemployed reaches -45 per cent of the population of a province. This is a constructive social measure and will be of great assistance to the provincial authorities in meeting the costs of unemployment relief. As the house knows, the provincial government of Newfoundland has already signed the draft agreement embodying this cost-sharing arrangement.
I welcome also the proposed amendments to the Trans-Canada Highway Act. The problem of communications has always been a very difficult one in Newfoundland because of the dispersal of its population. Good road communications are essential to the development of Newfoundland's natural resources and to the growth of its tourist industry. I am convinced that these proposed amendments will be of great value to Newfoundland, as they will be to the other provinces.
The full development of Newfoundland's natural resources requires social capital on a scale which the provincial government is unable to provide singlehanded. The provincial government has done very much and 67509-7i
The Address-Mr. Nowlan will continue to do its utmost to build up the public services which are a prerequisite to industrial development, but it needs the co-operation of the federal government. Moreover, the development of natural resources in Newfoundland, as in the other provinces, is unquestionably in the national interest of Canada as a whole.
It is my firm conviction, therefore, that the government of Canada should participate as fully as possible in public investment in Newfoundland, and thus contribute to her industrial development.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I naturally associate myself with those words which are always conventional and usually sincere, and in this case most sincere, in expressing congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is a difficult task for one to speak in this house on such an occasion. I know that the gracious lady who moved the address and the young man who seconded it both maintained the traditions that one expects of those performing that task, and this augurs well for their own future in parliament.
I am sure, too, that we all regret the fact that on this particular occasion the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the leader of the Social Credit party, is not in the house because of illness. I am sure we all hope that in the not too distant future he will be fully restored to health and back with us again.
The hon. member who has just preceded me has stated that the speech from the throne was a courageous approach to the problems confronting Canada. Overlooking any references to external affairs, with which one will not quarrel, if one can say that this speech is a courageous approach to internal problems then either we have no problems in Canada or the government does not have a solution to them, because there is very little in that speech having to do with our own domestic problems.
I was reminded of a statement I heard many years ago in a legislature a long way from here. A Liberal leader, who was criticizing vigorously a speech from the throne which had been brought down by a Conservative government, snorted and sniffed and finally said, "It was as dry as last year's birds' nests". I think that is as apt a description as one could find for this speech from the throne.
Last evening one of the hon. members from Halifax produced his own speech from the throne, in which he brought forward suggested solutions to many problems, none

The Address-Mr. Nowlan of which were mentioned in the speech from the throne. One appreciates that and welcomes it. The only thing that bothers one is the fact that members on that side occasionally have the courage to make these suggestions but, when the time comes to vote, they continue to vote for the government and vote against the very suggestions which they sometimes have advocated themselves. This does not add to one's hopes for the solution of some of those problems.
Last night the hon. member dealt with a problem to which he has referred on many occasions and to which I have also referred. T am going to mention it only briefly, but it is one that is becoming more important as the years go by. The question is the whole problem of university education in this country.
If time permitted-and if Mr. Speaker permitted, as I am sure he would not-I could put on record extensive quotations with respect to the problems confronting our universities today. I have one document here that contains statements by gentlemen who are not educationalists and not visionaries, but men such as Mr. Rhys Sale, the president of Ford of Canada, Mr. Douglas Ambridge, the president of Abitibi corporation, and Dr. Solandt, of the defence research board. All point out that we have not enough students attending university, and that of those who are attending, not enough are studying the sciences. In this country, we talk sometimes boastfully, or perhaps wishfully, of a population of 40 or 50 million which we shall attain in the not far distant future. Every one of these men says that if we are going to attain that increase or any part of that increase, we must develop, and emphasize the development of leadership to a far greater extent than we are doing today.
I do not wish to attach \oo much importance to the scientific field, because I think the humanities also have an important position and one which should be safeguarded. But I read last night a statement by the vice president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the effect that in Russia two-thirds of the students in all the universities are studying applied science and engineering with direct reference to the nuclear world we are entering. Here in Canada less than 50 per cent are studying the sciences, including medicine.
Something must be done to assist the universities in carrying the load with which they are burdened. That problem applies particularly, as I have said before, to our own universities in the maritime provinces. There we have succeeded in maintaining a tradition and a culture-I think a significant one and
one of which we are proud-which is virtually the only one of its type left in North America. It has been illustrated during the last few weeks by articles, which I hope hon. members have read, in Maclean's magazine, written by different Canadian authors, including Bruce Hutchison and Max Ferguson, dealing with our own particular culture. Perhaps the maritimes are the one place left in North America where we do not make a cult out of financial success itself, and we do not measure success by the size of a man's Cadillac car or by the number of garages a man has or whether he has two or three cars in his garage. The other night I read a magazine article by a leading educationalist in New Brunswick, who said that probably the maritimes were the only place left in North America where a clergyman receiving a salary of $3,000 a year and rendering real service to the community would probably get greater recognition than the president of a huge corporation drawing perhaps $500,000 a year.
If we have succeeded in maintaining that standard-and I believe it is worth while maintaining-our universities have contributed much towards it. Our universities indigenous to our own soil, though rather small, have performed a yeoman service.
They find the pressures today even greater than before.
Without going into the figures, which I have put on the record at other times, I simply want to say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am disappointed there is no reference or suggestion in the speech from the throne of an amendment to the act which would provide for larger grants to universities in general and our own universities in particular. It is absolutely wrong, sir, that a financial system should be worked out under which the universities which need the most receive the least, and that is the situation with respect to our universities in the maritime provinces. The government has not dealt with that problem up to the present, and that is only one of many problems in the field of education and the social services to which I think some attention should have been paid.
In that connection, too, I want to mention the system introduced last year of pensions for crippled persons, which has not worked out satisfactorily and has created tremendous disappointment. I do not suppose there is one member of the house who has not in his constituency a score of people who have been refused a pension when by any law based on practicality they should have received it. The minister said yesterday he was proposing to call a conference. That is always an easy way to deal with things and
fMr. Nowlan.]

to postpone them. I realize that this is a matter of provincial-federal co-operation and that a conference is necessary, but I do know the minister has received many protests during the year and I would have thought there would have been time to call that conference before now. In any event, we hope and urge that some action be taken in that connection before the house rises.
One could go on with omissions, but I do not propose to do that at the moment. The house will be glad to know, as has appeared in the newspapers, that the complaint I have made from time to time about the long delay in connection with the inauguration of the service now given by the Bluenose has finally been overcome and that the ferry is belatedly but I believe efficiently operating today between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor. I do not believe it could have been anticipated that it would be put in operation this fall. After all the long delays one would have thought every preparation would have been made, but certainly the accommodation at Yarmouth is of the most temporary nature. I know it is causing concern to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) right now, and I am quite certain that it was only due to the pressure of public opinion in the last month or two that the Bluenose was put in operation this fall. Otherwise it would have been delayed until next spring.
There is one point in connection with this matter that I want to mention. I refer to the rates which are being charged for the transportation of vehicles on the ferry. Some of us remember when the former minister of transport, Hon. Mr. Chevrier, spoke in such glowing and enthusiastic terms about this matter many years ago. At that time he emphasized the important part the ferry would play in the development of the economy of the maritimes, particularly the economy of Nova Scotia, in that our trucks could carry fish and agricultural products with a relatively short haul into the markets of New England and central Canada. That has been expected. Most of us thought that really would be the greatest contribution the ferry would make other than its contribution to the tourist industry, which was an obvious one.
Now, however, we find that the rates which it is proposed to charge are so high that according to the truck men they are virtually prohibitive. Instead of enabling us to deliver more goods more cheaply and efficiently to the markets of Ontario, Quebec and New England, the rates are such that we cannot augment these deliveries and we are virtually bound by the scale of costs which is now in vogue. I realize it is the responsibility of the minister and the C.N.R. to make
The Address-Mr. Nowlan the ferry operate as efficiently as possible and also not to lose too much money in connection with its operation. But that, sir, is only one factor in the situation. The boat was not built to operate as a financial success. The boat was built-incidentally, the province of Nova Scotia contributed $1,-
500,000	toward its capital cost-to assist industry in the maritimes in general and in Nova Scotia in particular. It is not going to render that service if the present rates are maintained.
It is true there has been an intimation that the matter is under study and review. Naturally these rates are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. They are not inscribed on stone and it should be possible, and I say it is necessary, to have them revised. Seasonal rates are not an unknown factor to the Department of Transport or in ratemaking generally in Canada. You have seasonal rates effective in so far as transportation on the great lakes is concerned. During the tourist season when the boat will be taxed to capacity one rate could be charged because at that particular season there would, be very little movement of products, but in the middle of September when the tourist trade rapidly falls off I think an adjustment in rates would not only be in the interests of industry in Nova Scotia but also in the interests of the boat itself, because you could then build up traffic in trucks which would be carried and bring about increased revenue which otherwise would be lost.
I raise this matter now because I hope that by the time the minister's estimates come before the house some time this spring he will be in a position to tell us that the rates have been revised. If he does not, I give him fair warning that I intend to urge as strongly as possible that he take action on that score before his estimates go through.
Dealing with shipping for a moment longer, there is one other matter to which I want to refer. I have mentioned it before, and again there is no reference to anything such as this in the speech from the throne. I think it is important. I refer to the necessity of a better and more efficient steamship service out of maritime ports to the Caribbean and South America. We in the maritimes have one asset which is not duplicated anywhere in Canada except in British Columbia. That is our maritime position, our export position. Nova Scotia sticks out like a wharf into the North Atlantic and, as we know, the movement of freight by water is the most economical method.
I know we have a potential market for Nova Scotia, maritime and Canadian products
102	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan generally in the markets of the Caribbean and South America, and this problem is not being met. Let me give one little graphic illustration as to just how we were confronted with the problem this year. I think the house knows-I am going to refer to it in a moment 

that this fall we were confronted with a crisis with respect to apples, as were other fruit growing districts in Canada. It was possible to market only a proportion of the crop. Certain exporters were able to locate markets in the West Indies for a substantial quantity of apples at a price which was most attractive in yiew of the competitive rates generally prevailing.
These markets were developed. They were found or financed, but then what did the fruit exporters find? They found that the refrigerated space available from Canadian National Steamships, the only steamship company servicing that area from Halifax, was so small that they could only accommodate a fraction of the order on each ship. As a result less than 50 per cent of the apples for which a firm market had been negotiated in Trinidad left Halifax, and a really substantial loss was incurred by the fruit growers who had looked forward to a very profitable market in the West Indies.
I know there are problems. I know there are exchange problems. I have had some little difficulty in getting permits for the export of Nova Scotia products to the West Indies. In this case, however, the exchange problem was solved, dollars were available, but Canadian National Steamships just had to say, "We are sorry, we have not the refrigerated space and we cannot take your apples."
That, Mr. Speaker, is not good enough. The Annapolis valley is probably as large an egg-producing area today as any other part of Canada. It has developed tremendously during the last ten years. There is a market in Venezuela with no exchange problems. It is a dollar market. They have dollars to burn, based on oil. What do you have to do? You have to rail the eggs in carload lots from the Annapolis valley to New York, or you have to haul them by truck and then reload them on refrigerator ships in New York and take them down to Venezuela, where you have competition from the United States producers. I am told they make a profit. That is not good enough either.
I have a suggestion to make. I have raised this matter before and I am urging it again as one contribution toward the solution of our maritime problems, many of which we must solve ourselves and as to which we are not asking any assistance. But this is a national problem. Private industry cannot furnish these ships because the markets are not there.
[Mr. Nowlan.l

They will have to be developed slowly and gradually. I have found the department to be most co-operative, the minister to be most apologetic and the Canadian National Railways anxious to serve. But when you have small ships with little refrigerated space there is no hope of developing those markets. That is something which should be done soon.
Speaking of transportation, I would not want to worry the minister with further possible problems which may arise, but I suppose it would not be amiss to give a preview of one upon which I know the minister has already been approached. Undoubtedly we shall hear more about it in the relatively near future. In my own constituency we have a transportation problem across the Minas basin, where before the war there was a regular steamship service cutting off several hundred miles of roundabout drive. We had the distinction, and in this case perhaps the misfortune, of having the then minister of finance in the dominion government as the representative of our constituency. He felt, and properly so, that he had to set an example for economy so that all his colleagues would follow suit. As a result, that steamship which was giving us a daily service and was receiving a subsidy from the Dominion of Canada, found that the subsidy was cut off or disallowed. I am told, in fact I know this, that it was the only steamship subsidy which was cut off in the whole of Canada, but it was to be an example.
The subsidy was discontinued and the boat ceased operation. It has since been sold and of course cannot go back into that operation again. However, a group of men are organizing a company which will have a ship in that service independent of the tides, and one which can operate at any time, day or night. I presume an approach will be made to the Minister of Public Works for the construction or reconstruction of wharves. I know a subsidy will be asked for as well if that ship is to operate as it should. I hope and believe this request will receive the support of the government when it is brought actively or officially to their attention within the next few weeks or months.
Much has been said in this debate already about the problems of agriculture, and I do not intend to repeat what others have said. Coming from the east, I think this should be said. The wheat grower is not the only farmer in Canada who is encountering problems. Farmers generally are encountering serious problems, and I do not think proper attention is being paid by this government to the solution of those problems. I know their solution is not any easy matter.

I know there is no cut and dried solution that anyone can come up with.
We are living in a rapidly changing world in so far as agricultural production is concerned. I do not think that fact has been recognized by those who are responsible for our administration at the moment. We have the problem of bonuses, fire sales, subsidies in other countries, in Europe and in Great Britain. Owing to these governmental techniques the net result is that the farmers in those countries can grow perhaps inferior goods but sell them at higher prices than our farmers can get by selling our goods over there at the moment.
I think study must be given to this whole problem of what we are going to do about subsidized production of agriculture all over the world. Sometimes the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture come down fairly late and we do not have as much time to spend on them as we should like to have. But when his estimates are before the house this winter or this spring I hope he will be in a position to give us the thinking of his officials or the suggestions of his department as to how agriculture is going to fare in this -if I may use a cliche-new world. It is a new world and one with which we are going to be confronted for many years to come. Frankly, as I said before. I do not think any great approach has been made so far to the solution of this problem.
In that connection may I say that I think our whole agricultural price support legislation needs overhauling and review, and that a policy needs to be evolved in connection with it. Frankly, at the moment I do not think we have a policy. I think we have a hit-or-miss approach, one of "do something if you can for this place if there is enough pressure, and don't do it if there is not enough pressure". No farmer knows where he fits in or what is going to happen so far as price support is concerned. I noticed a statement in the press, and it is not from a jaundiced political Conservative viewpoint. I have in my hand a statement attributed to the minister of agriculture from my own province, Hon. Colin Chisholm. When speaking here the other day at the dominion-provincial agricultural conference he said this:
I don't think we can continue any longer to deal with surpluses as isolated problems, or as problems which can be settled merely by granting price support here and there when extreme urgency calls for it.
I do not think we can do that either. I think something must be done to create price support legislation which will be consistent and rational, which can be understood and which can be brought into effect. I saw the
The Address-Mr. Nowlan system operating this fall in the valley. As is well known, the apple growers in the Annapolis valley approached the government and asked for financial assistance in September when they were confronted with the biggest crop they have ever had, I suppose, in their history. It was a beautiful crop, a tremendous one, and one which was absolutely beyond their capacity to market, as was true also of growers in other parts of Canada. It was not an isolated problem. It just happened this year that apples would grow on spruce trees, almost, anywhere in North America. In fact, trees that had not been sprayed or looked after for 15 years produced a very good quality crop.
The apple industry, through a delegation, approached the government and asked for financial assistance. That was early in September. The matter went on and on. First the Minister of Agriculture told the delegation from Nova Scotia that they should find out what was the attitude of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia with respect to this matter. I want to register my own objection, Mr. Speaker, to this particular approach.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may do so, I should like to make a correction.


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


James Garfield Gardiner: That representation was made by Nova Scotia, namely that they knew what the position of the other three provinces was, and we asked them to get it for us.


George Clyde Nowlan: I accept the minister's statement entirely. What I am saying is this. Representing Nova Scotia, I want to register a protest against a philosophy or a policy which would require, as a prerequisite to the price support of some commodity in Nova Scotia, the reaction of the growers of the same product in Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or wherever it might be. I can understand that there might be circumstances and products where that procedure should be followed but it does not necessarily apply in every case. This is a huge country. Each part has its own problems and its own diversifications. What may be the "situation prevailing in British Columbia this year has no application to Nova Scotia this year or vice versa, or to Ontario or Quebec.
That is one criticism I make of a hit-or-miss policy or lack of policy. When one is evolved, I say it must be evolved on such a basis that you do not have to say to somebody from one province, "Go and find out what they are thinking about it in another province". As the minister just said, he knew fully and his department knew fully what the other people were thinking about it anyway. It was well

The Address-Mr. Nowlan known that Ontario and Quebec, for their own reasons-and I am not criticizing them at all-did not favour price support for themselves. The minister knew that, but for weeks a stall was carried on.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not like to interrupt, but I should like to say we did not know. The Nova Scotia government came to us and represented that the three provinces had a certain point of view. We said all right, but to get that in writing from them. They were not able to get that in writing from them.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to enter into a discussion with the minister, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is this. I have kept out of this discussion up to now. I have said nothing about this at any time because I thought the thing was going to fail. I knew it would fail because, quite frankly, I was in Ottawa a week before the delegation came here and I saw the officials in the minister's department. They told me that the attitude of Ontario and Quebec was opposed to ours. It is a strange thing it took the minister five weeks to find out officially, and that he had to get the Nova Scotia officials to tell him what his own officials told me the week before. They wanted to obtain the attitude of Ontario and Quebec simply as a stall, hoping the apples would fall, the apples would rot or freeze or something would happen to them and the problem could be solved in that way.
In the end, following weeks and weeks of delay after the decision of Ontario and Quebec was known, during which time the growers did not know whether to borrow money in order to pick the apples, to borrow money to buy boxes or discontinue operations, a whisper would come down that there was a telegram from Mr. So and so who says that something is going to be done tomorrow. Then there would be another whisper from somebody who would be in communication with somebody who would be in communication with somebody who would be in communication with the Minister of Agriculture who apparently was not so optimistic. It depended on how good a Liberal you wer* or to whose telephone you had access whether you decided to pick apples or let them freeze on the trees.
Finally the minister announced that there would be. no price support this year. I could debate that decision but I am not going to do so. It was a decision he had to make. I think from some points of view he could justify it, but I do not think it is justified from our own point of view. However, I am not debating that at the moment; I am simply dealing with the technique which was followed. fMr. Nowlan.]


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not exactly correct either. If we are going to have a record, we had better have it correct. I stated that we could not carry out the proposal which they had made.


George Clyde Nowlan: There are official records of this, Mr. Speaker, but I have not those records in front of me. The end result was that there would be no price support for the valley this year. The minister went on to say that if they would reorganize, which might be an excellent suggestion, the marketing system and approach him next year, he would give the matter consideration. Of course this is a very broad promise. He said he would give consideration to anything they proposed. Whatever the exact words may have been, the end result was that we were told there was no price support for us this year.
As I have said, for the sake of this argument I am not quarrelling with that decision, although I may on another occasion. But that was not the end of it. Word kept coming that something was yet going to be done. This was the end of October or perhaps almost the first of November. I am speaking now from memory. This decision had been awaited from early September. Somebody says something else is going to happen, but this is not official. Then in November I read in the newspapers that officials from the department were down interviewing the minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia about this matter. Then we find officials of the price support board in the valley studying the case and getting the facts. The minister has a most competent inspection service which could have advised him, and undoubtedly did, every 24 hours as to the number of apples picked, the number in cold storage, the variety and where they were moving. All those things are matters of official record.
However, we had a delegation down to get the facts of the case. Then we had another delegation down to get the facts of the case. Even in December there were studies being made. Actually, Mr. Speaker, you know, in the old days of our great-grandfathers when we communicated back and forth, by smoke signals from hilltop to hilltop, information could have been carried back and forth to Ottawa from the Annapolis valley just as quickly as it was this season. Still these whispers, these thoughts, these hopes continued.
Then I read a most amazing statement attributed to the minister. I am paraphrasing it, and it was made in December when he met the potato growers from Prince Edward Island. He said, "Were I to give price support to potatoes in Prince Edward Island I would have to give price support to apples in the

Annapolis valley". If you can tell me the connection between apples and potatoes, I should like to know it. It is true that the French word for potatoes is pomme de terre and for apples it is just pomme, so perhaps the minister was confused and was thinking in French at that time; I do not know. I cannot find any other connection. If that is the basis upon which we are going to get price support, "because if I give price support to the potato growers in Prince Edward Island I have to give it to the apple growers of the Annapolis valley," then it is high time there was a study of this price support system.
I might remind the minister that when I first came to this house he did not even give price support on that basis. At that time he gave price support to potatoes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but did not give it to Nova Scotia potatoes. The day I left there was an announcement that price support had come to the valley. I did not have time to read the report, and because of the dislocation of communications in the valley I have not been able to receive any report other than the one I got from a few growers when I left that it was not worth anything. They did not think it would be accepted. Evidently it takes from an early September morning until a cold January morning to find out whether or not you can get price support, and in the meantime the apples are all sold, picked or frozen. This is not a happy situation. I say the time has come when we should have a study of this situation before we can adequately cope with the problems confronting agriculture.
There is one other matter which affected my constituency and upon which I want to make perhaps a few critical references. The disaster that recently hit the maritimes is not the only one from which we have suffered. During the fall and early winter the steamship service connecting our province with New Brunswick was cut off because of a strike, which extended from September until just before Christmas. The western part of Nova Scotia was isolated. The Bluenose was not there and the Princess Helene was tied up. Industry suffered tremendously. Unemployment was rife, and as I say this strike lasted from September until a day or two before Christmas.
This year we celebrated the bicentennial of the expulsion of the Acadians. We all know the tragic story of their expulsion and of their return around through the isthmus of Chignecto. I may say that if they had come back this year they would have had to travel the same way, because there was no other way of getting into Nova Scotia. The workers 67509-8
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy did not want to stay on strike. Industry was dislocated. This matter was as important to western Nova Scotia as a rail strike would be to the national economy. For the last few weeks at any rate settlement was held up, and I say this not unkindly but I believe advisedly, by the stubbornness of one man, the president of the S.I.U., who was determined to hold the strike on as long as he could in order to exercise influence somewhere else. We paid the penalty.
In a situation such as that, and one which meant so much to us, I do not believe we got the co-operation and leadership from this government which we deserved and which would have been given had the circumstances been different and had the strike occurred elsewhere. One result of the strike was unwarranted attacks on labour which naturally result when people are angered by such things. It was unfortunate and unnecessary that it should have been allowed to continue as long as it did.
Now I close on a happier note. I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture had his deputy in Nova Scotia last week. He was there for various reasons, probably, but among other things he had a conference with the minister of agriculture and the premier of Nova Scotia on the construction of a dam across the Annapolis river which, if completed, will restore thousands of acres of marshland and will remove the necessity of maintaining scores of miles of running dikes.
I just happened to read that in the paper last night. I smiled because I remembered that when I first spoke in this house, from down in the far corner, sir, I spent some little time emphasizing that question and urging the minister to do something of that nature. I am glad to know that he has had his engineers down there. I understand that surveys have been made and soundings have been taken, and that economically and financially it will not be such a terribly expensive undertaking.
I do hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way clear to work with the province of Nova Scotia in this regard. According to the reports one reads, they are prepared to co-operate in such an undertaking. I do hope this is one of those joint undertakings which can be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties, and if so it will be for the good of Nova Scotia.


Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, like those who have preceded me, I should like to add
106	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy my congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme).
I feel that this debate gives the private member an opportunity to report to the House of Commons generally on the affairs of his own constituency and the affairs of the province or of the nation in general as they affect the people he represents. This year, as in other years, and as long as I am permitted to sit in the House of Commons, I intend to outline to the government the necessity for the construction of the Chignecto canal, but before doing so there are some other matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the government.
The Liberal government has been very good to the province of New Brunswick in the past 20 years. I am not going to enumerate all the good things. The things I pick out are those with which perhaps we were not entirely satisfied. In outlining them I do not mean to say that I do not approve the government's program. I am making only helpful suggestions.
I have informed the Department of Public Works of the necessity of dredging to assist the fishermen of my constituency, especially at Cape Bald, Robichaud, Offer, Dupuis Corner and Little Cape. With respect to the first three mentioned, I have asked for extension so the fishermen will be able to land their fish there shortly after they are caught, and there will be no congestion. If that were done they would have the facilities that should be afforded. At Lower Cape Bald the wharf is the same size as it was 30 years ago, and it is now becoming quite crowded.
There is one harbour in Westmorland county that is in need of special consideration, namely the harbour of Pointe du Chene. This harbour is used by fishermen and shippers alike, but the depth of water is not great enough for ocean-crossing vessels to complete loading their cargo. The channel should be deepened to at least 18 feet to allow fully loaded vessels to enter the harbour. I ask the government to investigate this matter carefully. I have been assured by many of the shippers in the area that if this were done they would use the harbour, and it would give a lift to the economy of that particular area.
I wish to thank the Department of Public Works for the new wharf that is under construction at Emily's Point-Shemogue. I would also like to mention the fact that the building of 110 houses by the department at Moncton is appreciated in terms of employment and lasting effects. During one of the debates [Mr. Murphy (Westmorland) .1

last year the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) challenged me to say something about assistance to New Brunswick in the development of power. Last year I did that; I used the Colombo plan as an example, and I asked for some consideration for New Brunswick. This summer I read in the press that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had opened a project under the Colombo plan in the Far East. While I was very pleased to read that, I was sorry that instead of it being in the Far East it was not just down east in New Brunswick. Therefore I again suggest to the government that consideration be given to financial assistance by way of loan or by some other method for the development of power in the province of New Brunswick.
Since I spoke last on the Chignecto canal project, or since I first started speaking on it, most of the hon. members from New Brunswick have also mentioned it in their addresses and have been favourably disposed toward it. Perhaps the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, whose constituency would be vitally affected by it, will have something to say about the construction of the canal this year.
I should like to read to the house a short clipping from the Moncton Times, dated November 5, 1955. It reads as follows:
"The Chignecto canal project is essentially sound," declared Hon. George Drew, head of the national Progressive Conservative party and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, at a press conference in Moncton yesterday.
Mr. Drew was spending a few hours in the city on his way to Nova Scotia in the course of a hurried tour of the maritimes.
In saying he found the project "to be sound after intensive study," he added that "the courage and vision of people before us were responsible for the building of our rail lines." The same, he stated, holds true of canals.
"Throughout history lines of transportation, whether rail or water, have led to progress and I am of the opinion the Chignecto canal is a sound proposition for the benefit of Canada as a whole, and particularly so here in the maritimes."
I know the Leader of the Opposition was sincere when he said that this would be of benefit to all of Canada. I rather expected him to say something about it in the House of Commons during this debate.
In connection with the Chignecto canal project, last fall there was a press release in the Moncton Transcript dated September 16. It was a Canadian Press dispatch from Halifax. According to this dispatch a spokesman for the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company made a statement concerning the development of light and power under the Chignecto-Minas project. The dispatch stated that the project would provide 60 times the electrical energy that could be used in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined. That

The Address-Mr. H. J. Murphy
amount of electrical energy could be provided by the Chignecto-Minas project.
The Chignecto canal, of which I am speaking, would pierce the isthmus of Chignecto. For those who are not familiar with the geography of the maritimes may I say that the isthmus of Chignecto is a narrow neck of land which joins New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The proposed Chignecto canal would provide a short route in sheltered waters for ships running from the St. Lawrence river to the eastern seaboard of the United States, and in some cases would mean a saving of almost 500 miles. Such a canal would increase steamship sailings between the Atlantic provinces and central Canada, and with the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway the route to the eastern seaboard of the United States, Mexico and South America would be shortened by at least 400 miles.
It may surprise many to know that in 1871, shortly after confederation, industrial wages in New Brunswick were the highest of any of the provinces, but by 1946 they ranked second lowest. In 1871 one out of every five industrial workers in Canada was employed in the maritimes, but by 1946 this had dropped to one out of seventeen. During the past few years there have been discoveries of ore bodies in northern New Brunswick and Gaspe which are of such importance that another look at the Chignecto canal project by the government of Canada is very much in line. I think that we are entitled to know for once and for all what is going to be done about this great project.
The extent to which the failure to build the Chignecto canal has arrested development in the maritimes is difficult to estimate. That failure, together with the depression of the 1870's, greatly retarded our progress. Young people of the maritimes when denied opportunities for advancement migrated to other parts of Canada and the New England states which benefited greatly by such migrations.
The volume of traffic passing through our Canadian canals far exceeds the expectations of those men who had the foresight and courage to embark upon a policy of canal construction. The Chignecto canal has been included in federal estimates in the past, but for some reason or other it has never been carried out. There have been ten surveys made of the Chignecto isthmus, and with the exception of minor technical differences all agree that the canal is feasible. The Chignecto canal is a national need and in fairness to the maritimes Canada should keep her promise and build it now.
67509-8J
There is another matter which I should like to discuss briefly; that is the Canadian National Railways, which has a close connection with my constituency. Offices and repair shops of the railway are located in Moncton, and the interests of the employees of the Canadian National Railways are of great concern to me. As a member of the railway committee, to which Mr. Donald Gordon, the president, reports annually, I have become somewhat familiar with the operations of the Canadian National Railways. Although in Ottawa and Montreal Mr. Gordon may be considered the most important man in the Canadian National Railways, to me, representing as I do 5,000 railway workers in Moncton, the railwayman in Moncton is most important.
Not only do these men work for the Canadian National Railways; they take an interest in railroading that money could not buy. Railroading has been their lifelong work; they have spent many years in helping to build up the Canadian National Railways and when a deficit occurs they, like the rest of us, must pay taxes to make it up. As the true representative of such a large number of railwaymen I must make my position clear with respect to legislation concerning the right to strike by Canadian National men. It is not my intention to support any antistrike legislation dealing with the Canadian National, whether it be introduced from one side of the house or the other.
Before closing I have another request to make or recommendation to offer in connection wtih another corporation. While I approve of nationalization in the matter of the Canadian National Railways, I want to say something about another corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As far as radio is concerned, the C.B.C. has not been brought to my notice by my constituents generally. They seem to be fairly well satisfied with C.B.C. radio, but I do want to say a word about C.B.C. television.
We have a local television station in Moncton which serves us well. Its local programs are good, but apparently productions of the C.B.C. are distributed to local stations to be shown to the viewers there. As more sets are bought in my constituency the more complaints I get about C.B.C. television productions. I have been told that they are terrible, that they smell. Although I am not a television fan I have viewed some of the C.B.C. productions and I must say that the complaints seem to be justified. Perhaps this work could be done better by private enterprise or perhaps not, but my opinion is that it could be better done.

The Address-Mr. Barnett
It may be that this is a new type of Canadian culture as distinct from that of our neighbours to the south, but the fact is that it is not being well received by the public who are paying the bills and who should be entitled to view what they want to view.


An hon. Member:: They are no worse than the United States programs.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I have no complaint to make about the United States programs I have seen, as I have found them to be quite good. I am not a producer and I do not know how to remedy this, but I do know a finished product when I see one. There must be some way to remedy this and perhaps somebody else has a remedy. Probably issue will be taken with me on this matter, but I am simply indicating the representations which have been made to me by my constituents. They are the ones who have sent me here to make known the needs of the county of Westmorland.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity which this debate affords to bring to the attention of hon. members of the house so early in the session a matter which is of widespread interest and deep concern to many of the people who live in the coastal areas of British Columbia, and indeed I think it would be fair to say to the people who live in all the maritime parts of Canada. I am referring to the matter of coastal marine protection services.
In order to indicate something of the interest which this question has aroused in British Columbia I should like to give a few samples of newspaper headings which have appeared in recent months in that province. For example, in the Victoria Daily Colonist of September 17 appears the headline "Fishermen ask for naval vessels as alternative to coastguard help". In the newspaper The Fisherman of September 13 we find the headline "Union renews demand for proper coastguard". Then again in the Victoria Colonist we find on October 2 the headline "Six hundred west coast fishermen ask B.C. mariners' help". On October 17 in the Vancouver Daily Province I was interested to see the headline "Marler to inspect B.C. rescue system". On October 18 in the same newspaper, appears the headline "Marler set against B.C. coastguard. Plan 'not practical', states Minister of Transport on tour". Then in the Vancouver Sun of the following day, October 19, appeared the headline "Search called off for B.C. fisherman. Gillnetter wreckage found as chill waters claim third life."
All our ships are not lost, as indicated in the October 24 headline in the Vancouver Province, "Battered U.S. ship safe in Bull harbour after nearly foundering off B.C. coast". Then on October 31 in the Vancouver Sun appeared the headline, "Air-sea search finds fisher beached, safe".
In the Comox district Free Press of August 17, there was another headline of interest, which reads, "RCAF crashboat in night rescue. The crash boat of the Comox R.C.A.F. station was called out at midnight Tuesday and rescued a party from Mitlenatch island where they had been marooned by the stormy weather".
These are a few samples from the headlines which have been appearing in various newspapers published in British Columbia during recent months, indicating perhaps why the member for Comox-Alberni, among others, should be concerned with this matter and should be interested to take this opportunity early in the session, once again, of raising this question of marine coastal protection.
I should like to say at the outset that I am not too much concerned about that headline which states that the Minister of Transport is set against coastguards, because it has become obvious to me during the previous sessions I have attended that for some reason or other, whenever anyone mentions the term "coastguard" the government apparently goes into an immediate state of dither, buries its head in the sand and tries to forget all about the matter. That is perhaps why, as far as I am concerned, I am going to attempt to use the phrase "marine rescue service", because essentially that is what the people who are raising the question of a coastguard have in mind rather than a coastguard in the sense in which that term is used in the United States, where that service, of course, has other aspects to it.
An earlier headline I read indicated that fishermen on the coast are greatly interested in this matter and that interest has reached the extent that they have been supporting a petition which has been circulated on the coast during the past few months. I have been entrusted with the honour of presenting that petition to the Minister of Transport on behalf of those people. I should like to make it clear that this petition was not sponsored by any large organization putting on a high pressure campaign to obtain signatures for it. This petition was initiated and circulated by a widow with two small children, whose husband was lost with a fishing vessel off the west coast of Vancouver island not so long ago. Having had the opportunity and the pleasure of becoming acquainted with her,

I must say here publicly that I wish to commend her courage and initiative in doing something about the situation rather than simply sitting at home with her grief.
This petition represents the real feeling of hundreds of the people who go down to the sea in ships, that all is not well with the present situation. I am happy to say that I have indicated the contents of this petition to my colleagues, the other members of the C.C.F. group in this house, and that they are thoroughly in agreement with me in supporting it. I was also very happy to note, according to a report in the Victoria press, that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) and the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Fairey) have also indicated that they are prepared to lend their support to this petition. I am sure there are many other hon. members of this house who will be willing to do likewise, particularly those who come from the maritime areas of this country.
Now I should like to read to the house, so all the members may be fully aware of its contents, the statement which precedes the 1,860 names which are thereto attached. This is addressed to Hon. G. C. Marler, Minister of Transport:
We the undersigned do hereby petition for the establishment of a Canadian coast service which will have at its disposal every modern technological advantage in the hands of trained personnel.
We submit that the present air sea rescue service, admirable in theory, is, in practice, inadequate and inefficient and does not meet the very real and stringent requirements inherent in marine rescue work.
We submit that the present life saving service is poorly equipped, understaffed by untrained personnel, and, with reference to geographic considerations, poorly located. It is well to note that if the present life saving stations at Tofino and Bamfield are justifiable, there are exposed areas of the British Columbia coast, with as much, or greater, marine activity, that have no comparable service.
We submit that because of increasing coastal marine activity, including the development of a Canadian offshore fishing industry, it is imperative that a coast guard service be inaugurated to protect the lives and safeguard the property of those involved.
We submit that the rescue services of Britain, the United States and other nations be taken under consideration and the best features of each, with due regard to the particular and peculiar needs of Canada, be incorporated into a Canadian coast guard.
As I have indicated, this petition has 1,860 names of west coast residents, fishermen and others, attached to it, and I feel honoured to have been entrusted with the task of delivering this to the Minister of Transport. I was very glad to see that the Minister of Transport paid a visit to the coast of British Columbia during the recess. I understand he
The Address-Mr. Barnett had an opportunity of seeing firsthand something of that coast on a trip by air from Victoria, I believe it was, to Prince Rupert.
I was quite interested to discover a Canadian Press report carried by the Vancouver newspapers containing certain remarks made by the minister as a result of his inspection. In the dispatch he is reported as saying that from what he has learned the present facilities appear to be very good, at least on paper.
I must say when I read these remarks of the minister I had the feeling he was taking some words out of my mouth from the speech which at that time I was mentally preparing for delivery here. The claim has been made more than once by spokesmen for the government that the air-sea rescue service as we know it today is the answer. The Minister of Transport is also quoted as saying that those who urge a coastguard service are apparently unaware of the existing air-sea rescue facilities. Therefore I feel it might be worth while to take a brief look at the air-sea rescue service as it is now constituted, how it is set up and organized, because I want to assure the Minister of Transport that a good many of the many people with whom I have discussed this matter during the recess have had some firsthand acquaintance with just how the service operates.
I myself am not a mariner and consequently have relied a good deal on discussions with people whom I know have had many years of firsthand experience of life on the British Columbia coast through travelling up and down it by ship. Coupled with that, I have tried to make my own observations and form my judgments therefrom. I want to make it clear that while I am in complete support of the submission of this petition, what I have to say about the air-sea rescue service and the suggestions I may make as to what should be done are the result of my own observations and my own judgment of the matter.
I have in my hand a little booklet entitled "Search and Rescue in B.C., 1955 edition". It is a very good little booklet which sets forth quite clearly just what the search and rescue service is and what it is prepared to do. It starts out with the rescue co-ordination centre at No. 12 air defence group, Vancouver, and indicates that there are certain primary and secondary facilities attached to and co-ordinated by that centre.
The primary facilities are the No. 12 communication and rescue unit of the R.C.A.F, stationed at Sea island. I should like to say that the impression I had on my first visit to these establishments was favourable. I fell they were being efficiently run and were
no	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Barnett doing, within the limits of what they were able to do, an effective job of organizing the work. Quite frankly, I was impressed with some of the equipment that the communication and rescue unit at Sea island has available for various forms of search and rescue work both on land and by sea. I think it is fair to say my own reaction is in line with the general reaction to the work of that particular rescue unit of the R.C.A.F. I have heard some very favourable comments made on the work they have done.
On the other hand, however, as I think is clear from the wording of the petition, the feeling is not so much one of dissatisfaction with what is there but with what is not there. That brings us to the consideration of this plan which, as the Minister of Transport has stated, looks good on paper. We find that attached to the co-ordination centre are quite a number of various units and organizations of one kind and another. I am going to mention the ones particularly concerned with rescue and search as far as the sea is concerned.
As secondary facilities there are, for example, the vessels of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, motor launches at various points along the coast. There are the vessels of the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and the British Columbia forest service. That of course is not to mention the various communications services, including the marine radio stations of the Department of Transport! While there are some questions as to communications facilities, respecting the co-ordination of various air frequencies and so on, that have been raised with me, by and large the real criticism does not arise in the communications field.
In addition, of course, there are the vessels of the British Columbia towboat owners' association. In the areas where the vessels of the members of that association operate most frequently there is a feeling that they can do a useful job, but there is a recognition that these boats do not operate everywhere. The same thing applies with respect to the various government boats which are coordinated in this centre.
When you add all these various vessels together they appear to provide an impressive number, but apart from the two small lifeboats at Bamfield and Tofino stations none of these vessels is on duty, on call and available for marine rescue work, at any and all times or at any given or known location. That, Mr. Speaker, appears to me to be the weakness of the present set-up, plus the fact that none of the government vessels nor,


as far as I know, none of the privately owned vessels that are tied in with this plan are equipped to carry on marine rescue work or carry crews who have been trained to perform marine rescue work.
I have felt more than once that in this respect the set-up is very similar to what would be the case in a city like Ottawa if our house were on fire and we had to rely on going down the street and being able to find a truck which happened to be equipped with a pump and a ladder. The chances of doing that would be rather remote. That, Mr. Speaker, is the feeling of the people of the coastal areas of British Columbia on this matter.
By way of illustration, while I was visiting one of the centres in my constituency this summer I had the opportunity to go aboard one of the larger vessels operated by the Department of Fisheries. There are, as you may know, three of these larger vessels, the Howay, the Laurier and the Kitimat. This was my first opportunity to see one of the larger type fisheries vessel. It was quite a substantial looking boat. One felt that it could go out into the open waters of the Pacific in rather stormy weather. It was well and, I would say, quite comfortably equipped to do the work of the Department of Fisheries. But when I raised the question as to what they had aboard that vessel to carry on any sort of marine rescue work, they had to admit that the boat had no such equipment. I greatly doubt whether, under the present set-up, the crew of that vessel has ever received any special training in the carrying out of marine rescue work.
As I stated earlier, the initiator of a petition which I have read was a Mrs. Ian C. MacLeod of Tofino. I have here her recounting in a straightforward factual manner of just what happened at the time her husband was lost. I feel that this perhaps reveals some of the weaknesses of the present set-up to which I have been referring. This is the story:
On July 30, 1955, a fishing boat Maidi H was reported missing with Ian Charles MacLeod of Tofino and a friend Kenneth Wilson from Vancouver.
The Tofino lifeboat and fishermen combed the shore waters and beaches from here-
That is Tofino.
[DOT]-to Estevan point. Air and sea rescue was contacted. They sent one plane at 11.30 next morning (3 hours late due to fog here) which picked up local observers and searched for 4 hours.
The following day two planes were sent. These searched for 4 hours with no local observers aboard. Two days elapsed. Then pressure was brought to bear on the air and sea rescue and five planes were promised. These agreed to take up

local observers. However, only two planes were sent and the other three were dispatched to search for a plane (carrying government officials) lost near Kitlmat making a total of 15 planes searching in the Kitimat area.
This same day August 3rd, the fishery guardian Comox Post was requested by a local resident, and arrived from San Juan in the straits of Juan de Fuca late the following afternoon. The Comox Post tied up at the Tofino float for the night and started her search the following morning, Friday, August 5.
The forestry boat Yellow Cedar was tied to the Tofino float all during the search for the Maidi H. The skipper of the Yellow Cedar phoned to the forestry branch headquarters to ask permission to take part in the search and he was refused even though, theoretically, this vessel is incorporated into the air and sea rescue service.
This is her statement of conclusions derived from this experience:
1.	We need three or four larger and faster and well-equipped boats to patrol off shore during the fishing season, spring to fall.
2.	We need more lifeboats, at least two for the upper part of Vancouver island.
3.	We need one or two planes based in a central west coast area, R.C.A.F. station, Long Beach. Vancouver is too far when weather conditions are sometimes entirely different between the two areas.
4.	We need better co-ordination between the various organizations taking part in a search.
5.	Search vessels and planes should be able to communicate on the same frequency band for better co-ordination and co-operation during a search.
6.	We need better equipment on the smaller vessels.
I have here one other story which I am going to read, Mr. Speaker. This is the story of an experience of some of the Indian fishermen who live in my constituency, and is set out in this man's own words. This incident happened, I might say, in April, 1952:
We started out about 6.30 a.m. We had few provisions. We went 6 miles out from Rafael point and our engine stalled at 8 a.m. in southeasterly gale. We drifted to Estevan point i mile off shore and the wind changed to a westerly. We drifted for 6 hours at night to Lennard island. The next day 18th we pumped the boat all day and in the evening the wind calmed. Early evening of the 18th we spotted a troller 3 miles abreast. They did not see us. We tried to attract attention with smoke and a mirror. Before dark we spotted a plane directly above us. We tried to attract attention with smoke and a mirror, but they did not see us. On the 19th before midday another plane was flying on the inside of us. We tried again to draw attention with no avail. No provisions and we boiled salt water for the remaining part of the day. On the 20th, no plane. On the 21st we started working on the engine and by 4.30 p.m. she was under way and we pulled in to Tofino about 10.45 p.m.
Each day Nelson Reitlah and Johnathan Thomas worked on the engine. As a result, from 4 days' exposure Nelson Reitlah developed T.B. of the lung and was released from hospital on July 14, 1955.
The next of kin of Nelson Reitlah and Johnathan Thomas and the residents of Ahousat raised sufficient money to bring planes up from air and sea rescue, Vancouver.
The Address-Mr. Barnett
Mr. Speaker, I believe that is probably not quite correctly stated. I believe it was a private plane which was chartered.
Chartered plane Ahousat people paid $140. Ahousat people also paid $125 to supply gas for boats to go out on rescue. No help from Indian department.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are but two of many stories which could be told of happenings on the sea along the coast of British Columbia. The conclusions I come to in my own mind are that while certainly the facilities which have come into existence should not be scrapped, nevertheless before we can consider ourselves to have anything like adequate marine coastal protection they must be supplemented by properly equipped facilities, with properly trained personnel who are going to be on the job and available for quick work in the event of disaster at sea. The booklet published by search and rescue, to which I have previously referred,
I think does make quite clear that no provision has been made as yet for proper facilities of the kind to which I have been referring. On page 5 of this 1955 edition of "Search and Rescue" appears the statement:
Marine search and rescue in Canada is dependent mainly on co-operation between mariners themselves.
Later on that page it says:
Only when immediate danger or loss of life is involved, or when no commercial or private vessel is available or prepared to take on the job, will a tow be provided by one of the government operated services. Even when such a tow is provided, the master of the vessel so towed is liable to be charged for the service.
The following policy is in effect regarding surface craft in distress:
(a)	Whenever surface craft request assistance which involves towing, the rescue co-ordination centre will pass the request to a commercial salvage company operating in the area.
(b)	If no commercial company is able to go to the aid of the distressed vessel, then the rescue co-ordination centre will request the assistance of the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other government vessels.
(d) It must be understood that the search and rescue organization in Canada differs from that of the United States coastguard, in that free towing of vessels is not provided on request.
I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the policy which is presently in effect, and which is the policy stated in this booklet, does not show more concern for the interests of the private towing and salvage companies than for the fishermen and others operating vessels along our coasts. The people who know we have government vessels operating on the coast find it difficult to understand why, particularly when they see that such vessels are attached to a service such as this, vessels which have been paid for by the people of Canada are not

The Address-Mr. Barnett more freely available and more effectively available to the people of Canada who need them.
The fishermen of British Columbia are not suggesting necessarily that they expect a completely free towing service. But they know, as I know, that for many of the areas of British Columbia there simply are no commercial firms operating in a way to provide any effective service. They know, as I know, that there are times when, no matter how much they may desire to help themselves, they cannot do so with the type of vessels they have, and we have some very fine fishing vessels in British Columbia. It is under those circumstances they feel there should be properly equipped rescue vessels available.
I have had it reported to me that in some ways in this connection we have actually gone backward. For example, I have had it reported to me that all during the thirties for about four months every winter there was a naval tug stationed at Bamfield for the purpose of rescue work, supplementary to that provided by the small lifeboats. Let me make it clear that from my own observations of the work being done by the captain and crew of those life boats, they are doing the very best they can. Generally speaking, people of the area are high in their praise of the work they perform. But anyone who sees these lifeboats realizes they are certainly not what one would consider to be modern rescue vessels. They are limited by the very nature of their construction in the type of facilities it might be practical to instal in them, as for example radar.
It seems to me that a rescue vessel which is going to be asked to go out in weather into which no ordinary vessel would venture should have the very latest type of equipment. Certainly radar is one of the great weapons of mariners in combating such things as fog. Anyone who knows the west coast of British Columbia knows that fog does descend upon it on more than the odd occasion. Nevertheless in years gone by naval vessels were made available, and they are not now being made available. There is a story which is rather notorious on the west coast of a case away back in 1951, I believe it was, when the captain of a certain naval tug set forth to rescue a tuna fishing vessel. After having steamed out for a couple of hours off the coast, according to the story, he was ordered back because he had not had authorization from Ottawa.
All these things indicate some of the sources of dissatisfaction with the set-up and some of the reasons for the demand that has arisen that we now have a marine rescue service.


The time has come to establish a proper, modern rescue service which would be available under these circumstances to the people in the coastal areas of British Columbia, and I suppose other parts of Canada. These services are necessary. It appears to me these services could be provided without incurring the enormous costs which apparently, as I said earlier, have caused the government to bury its head in the sand every time anybody mentions the coastguard. It is for that reason, as I said earlier, I have welcomed this opportunity of raising this matter almost at the outset of the current session.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: In taking part in this debate I should like, first of all, to convey my congratulations to both my colleagues, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme), the mover and seconder of the address. The mover of the address is my neighbour, and as you are able to ascertain, a very good neighbour indeed. She did a wonderful job and her constituents have good reason to be proud of her, just as we have.
(Translation) :
Our good friend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) has proved to us that he can most creditably get by in this house. The electors of his riding were right in choosing him to represent them here in Ottawa, and we are all very proud to have him among us.
(Text):
I would not like to let this occasion go by, Mr. Speaker, without extending to you my sincere congratulations and good wishes. I also wish to take this opportunity to transmit to you and through you to all hon. members salutations and best regards from all the people of the constituency of Villeneuve. We are on the eve of a new session. We all came here in order to work in the best interests of our fellow Canadians, and I am hopeful that our deliberations will bear fruit and will be profitable to each and every one of our fellow citizens, from one end of the country to the other.
I intend to talk this afternoon about my constituency and the surrounding district, not because it is the usual practice in such a debate but because I feel that what is going on in northwestern Quebec is of great interest to the whole of the population of Canada. I would also like to acquaint the house with some of the projects we wish to undertake in order to accelerate the more rational development of our natural resources. And finally, during the course of my remarks, in the name of my constituents and for the welfare of our district I will be making a few

suggestions to the government, who in the past have responded so well to most, if not all, of the requests of those whom I have the honour to represent in this house.
With regard to mining in northwestern Quebec, Mr. Speaker, we are taking no backward steps. On the contrary, we are continually going forward. We are producing more and more of the much needed base metals. Our gold mines are still employing more than 4,500 men in spite of the trying times they are going through. We now have a lithium producing mine, the first one in Canada, and it is operated by the Quebec Lithium Corporation. There is a new copper producer in the Chibougamau mining area, and by the looks of things there will be probably two or three more in the very same area within the next year or two. There is every reason to believe that in this country of ours during the next ten years we shall see an even greater expansion in our mining industry than we have enjoyed during the past decade, and we know it was the most active ten years we have ever had.
There are many reasons why we should be very much on the alert regarding the development of the mining industry of this country, and there are certain facts which should always be kept in mind. First, we are sitting on top of a tremendous storehouse containing an immense variety of minerals. This accumulation of riches has only been scratched, and today its extraction from the earth and its processing have created new jobs for a great number of Canadians. For every mine which finally does reach production there are at least 1,000 other properties which are being investigated, thus providing employment for many thousands of men engaged in prospecting, diamond drilling, surveying and all sorts of exploration work. And what is more important, for each man working in a producing mine there are four or five other men working in a related or supply industry.
Second, Mr. Speaker, mining is still the biggest influence in opening up the north country, and lately it has also been bringing booms in more settled areas such as Bath-hurst and Little River in New Brunswick, Gaspe and Oka in Quebec, and Algoma, Blind River and Bancroft in Ontario. During recent years mining has been responsible for the building of more new railway lines than all other industries combined. It has tilted the scale in favour of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. And finally, what is more important, it has attracted huge sums of foreign capital to this country, thus bringing about much more expansion than would otherwise have been possible. It has created new investment in mining projects, to a total of about $1 billion.
The Address-Mr. Dumas
Our strategic position adjoining the world's largest industrial nation, the abundance of our mineral resources, the many big projects which either are developed or will be developed shortly, the new Canadian settlements from coast to coast, cannot help but result in a period of growth in the years immediately ahead that will far surpass anything we have experienced up to the present time.
Our mining industry has grown and expanded, and so has the federal department of mines. Before 1949 this government service was only a branch of another ministry. In fact the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys was created on January 18, 1950, by an act of parliament which received royal assent on December 19, 1949. During the past 50 years the federal department of mines has done a great job for the country in the fields of geology, mineralogy, special research and other related experiments. The excellent mapping done by the department and the very careful work carried on in its laboratories have led to the discovery of bigger and more numerous ore deposits, and have also permitted a more economical processing of them.
Airborne magnetometer surveys were started in 1947 by the geological survey branch, and during the following four or five years this kind of work was carried on over many thousands of miles in various parts of Canada. The information derived from this kind of work has been valuable and most gratifying. Those surveys have been responsible for the finding of the iron ore deposits of Marmora, Ontario, the copper-zinc deposits of Bathurst and Little River in New Brunswick, and many other ore deposits in different parts of the country.
However, since 1952 it seems that the department has discontinued this kind of work, at least in most of the provinces. I would urge the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) to let the geological survey branch carry on with its airborne magnetometer surveys across the whole of Canada, especially in those provinces where there is no such work in progress. This has provided useful and valuable information in the southern part of the shield area. I am convinced that it would be of great help to those who are engaged in prospecting in other parts further north.
When I say that I have in mind more particularly that part of our district between Beattyville and Chibougamau, where the Canadian National is now building a railway line. During the next season this section will be a hive of activity as far as prospecting
114	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dumas is concerned, and this activity will continue for many years to come. Mines will be developed in that area, and the more tools we put in the hands of the prospectors and the companies the quicker the job will be done.
It is quite easy to understand that this intensive mining activity in the areas of known economic importance and the spreading out of those activities into new areas has caused an extraordinary demand for more and more geodetic, topographic, hydrographic and geologic surveys. It is not surprising to learn that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has found it most difficult to keep up with the increased needs. However, it is gratifying to learn that by using modern tools and equipment, by developing new techniques and a more rapid system of surveying, the personnel of the department have been able to speed up their work and they are now pretty well meeting the increasing demand.
But there will be much more to be done. The demands for increased services by all branches of the department will be pressing. I urge the government to make more money available to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys so his department will be able to keep up with its work and be permitted to continue to operate with the high degree of efficiency which it has shown in the past.
Agriculture has gradually become a basic industry in northwestern Quebec, more particularly within the clay belt which is eminently suited to the production of fodder and consequently stock-farming, either for the production of meat or dairy products. Small-scale farming and gardening could be made profitable around the larger centres such as Rouyn-Noranda, Malartic, Val d'Or-Bourla-maque and Amos. In this respect I would hope that the division of horticulture at Kapuskasing would conduct experimental work in the growing and preparation for market of vegetables in those centres. There are a great number of small farms which are suitable for that kind of production, and their owners are in urgent need of guidance and encouragement. I will go as far as to say that an experimental station for that purpose would be a profitable investment.
At this point I want to take advantage of this opportunity to offer my sincere thanks to the officers and technicians of the Department of Agriculture for all they have done to help the farmers of our district. More particularly I wish to say that the farmers of northwestern Quebec are grateful to the director, the technicians and other employees of the federal experimental farm at Kapuskasing and of the experimental substation at Macamic in the constituency of my good
[Mr. Dumas. 1

friend the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Gourd), for the guidance, good advice and encouragement which has been supplied in the performance of their duties. We are in great need of this kind of service, and we hope it will be accelerated.
As it is, the development of agriculture in northwestern Quebec depends mostly upon the mining industry. This industry injects a pecuniary serum which enables a settler to live through the difficult years when he has to work on virgin soil which will bear fruit only after years of unceasing labour. The settler finds in the mining centres a ready market for his lumber and other farm products, and the mining industry provides work for him during the off season. So gradually the settlement lot becomes a productive farm and the settler a real farmer who is ready to take his rightful place in the community.
The majority of our farmers are at a stage where they need additional help, guidance and encouragement. They need help in connection with their livestock and the classification, storage and distribution of their product. Studies of these various problems are now being made by local organizations, but it is only with the help of duly qualified technicians, the guidance of good management, the encouragement of the business people of our district and financial aid from both the federal and provincial governments that a program of such breadth can be carried out.
There are over 65,000 people in the cities and towns of northwestern Quebec. Carloads of such commodities as meat, vegetables, dairy products and poultry come from outside the district to be distributed by the many merchants in the different localities. In such a situation it would be thought that local products would find an outlet. However, we are becoming aware of the fact that the grocer cannot buy products which are not classified. Moreover, if he is not assured of a steady flow of products from the local farmers he cannot buy from them.
Our farmers need a distribution centre in which they could find facilities such as a slaughterhouse, cold storage and good management for the distribution of their products. These facilities are presently lacking, therefore the flow of products is not steady. This is due partly to a lack of guidance in connection with distribution.
Further progress could be made by a livestock improvement program operated jointly with a program for the development of grasses. This would enable the farmers of the district to continue the production of livestock on a more sustained basis.

Finally, so that the farming industry of northwestern Quebec may fulfil its expectations, let us hope that a large-scale program of drainage will be undertaken with the co-operation of both federal and provincial governments throughout the whole of this part of the pre-Cambrian clay belt which is level with the farm lands. In addition to improving arable land it would help reforestation and the development of large marshland areas which are now absolutely useless. The farmers of northwestern Quebec keep toiling to clear and improve their farms. The heavy work which they took on at the beginning is now producing results.
However, if we want the progress of the farmers of our district to be on a par with that of other industries, we shall have to give them a hand; we shall have to help those who have worked so hard to clear the land and, Anally, we shall have to try to make it easier for the farmers to distribute their products. We know how steadfast our farmers are, and if we help them ever so little we may be sure they will do their full share in the development and progress of northwestern Quebec.
Earlier in my remarks I said I would acquaint the house with some of the projects we of northwestern Quebec have in mind in order to accelerate the more rational development and exploitation of our natural resources. Before I do so I wish to quote, with your permission, from an article which appeared in one of our leading local newspapers, the Star, in the edition of January 6, 1956. The article is entitled "To get something done, or not", and it reads as follows:
When you see a committee set up within, or auxiliary to, a larger body, it is safe to guess that one of two purposes has prompted its formation- (1) to get something done, and (2) not to get something done but to go through the motions of getting something done.
Frankly, we have had to revise our opinion of the Abitibi East industrial commission which the federation of chambers of commerce sponsored in 1954. We were suspicious then that it was just another committee which would go through the motions.
We are happy to say here and now that this opinion was wrong. It has been proved wrong.
It has been proved wrong because this industrial commission, of which we expect so much in northwestern Quebec, has been organized by and is actually under the direction of a group of people who firmly believe that if you want something done you should at least know what you want to have done and that, if you want to be helped, you should start by trying to help yourself.
The industrial commission was organized in 1954, as I have said, and it started its work with a three-point program. First, the commission promised its full co-operation and
The Address-Mr. Dumas assistance to the farm organizations of the district in their efforts to construct a slaughterhouse and establish a distribution centre, both very essential, as I have said, to the future well-being of our farmers. Second, the commission undertook to sponsor the establishment of a paper mill in the very heart of the district, which for many years has seen its pulpwood being cut and shipped away to be transformed into finished paper in other parts of the province rather than on the spot. Third, the commission has undertaken to sponsor the construction of a zinc refinery. After only the very short period of two years we have good reason to believe that those three projects are well on their way to becoming realities.
The establishment of the paper mill, I am told, will be announced very shortly. The construction of that mill and the development of a water power site to operate that mill will mean an outlay of at least $50 million. This new industry in the district will create an important source of employment and, moreover, it will mean that one of the most important natural resources of the area will be processed right on the spot, thus giving more profit, as it should, to the people of the district. The establishment of this paper mill will necessitate the construction of a 50-mile railway spur beginning at a point on the new railway line presently being built from Beattyville to Chibougamau.
The promotion work on the proposed zinc refinery is well under way, and we are informed that the refinery itself might be in operation before the end of the year. As everyone knows, a large amount of zinc concentrates is produced every year in our district. Not only part of this production but the whole of it is being shipped to different points in the United States to be refined. Again in this case, if we can succeed in having those concentrates processed right where they are produced we shall have gone a step forward in the more rational exploitation of one of our natural resources.
As to the construction of a slaughterhouse and the establishment of a distribution centre, the project is well under way, and as soon as the financial details are arranged the construction will be started and accelerated as much as possible.
Those projects I have mentioned are not the only ones which are under study by the industrial commission. There are many others, indicative of the work which is now being done by this group of people who are so confident of the future of our country that they do not hesitate to give their time and knowledge for the welfare and the wellbeing of their fellow citizens.

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt
If I mention the above projects, it is because I think the information might be of some interest to the house, in view of the fact that more and more we hear about the desirability of processing a larger amount of our own natural resources right here in Canada. If we are anxious to do so, and I am sure we all are, what I have just said shows one way to do it.
The provinces have the responsibility and the right to control and develop their own natural resources and, as was mentioned yesterday and so well explained by the Prime Minister, they are very jealous of those prerogatives. That is their privilege and their right. But if some local organization, within its own province, takes the initiative, there are good reasons to believe that the government of that province will pay more attention to these representations than to any others that may be made from here, no matter how constructive or how sincere they may be.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I should like first of all to take the opportunity of congratulating the mover and the seconder for the able manner in which they fulfilled those duties.
Before I make any comments on the speech itself, I should like also to take this opportunity of saying that I recently had the opportunity of attending the last session of the general assembly of the United Nations as a parliamentary observer, and I should like to express my personal thanks for the courtesy extended to me there by the head of the Canadian delegation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I should like to say at the same time that all the members and staff of the Canadian delegation seemed to be very efficient and very well up on their duties in general.
My first observation on the speech from the throne itself is this. Like others who have already spoken and no doubt others who will be speaking in the future, I cannot help regret certain omissions from the speech itself. I regret particularly that there was no reference in the speech from the throne to the problem of veterans affairs. In this regard I regret particularly that no provision was made to set up a standing committee to deal with veterans' problems as they arise. For instance, last year some new veterans' legislation was passed, quite a bit of it as a matter of fact, but already certain weaknesses in this legislation have made themselves apparent. While no veterans' legislation has been proposed so far at least this session, if a standing committee were


set up it would have the opportunity of discussing the weaknesses that have appeared in recent legislation.
I am also sorry to notice that there is no mention of any legislation respecting war veterans of world war I who served only in the United Kingdom. It had been hoped that possibly legislation would be proposed to include these few remaining persons under the War Veterans Allowance Act. However, this is apparently not being done. It seems rather a shame that these persons who served in the first world war should not be included, as they certainly travelled through an active field of warfare to get to England. I think the north Atlantic could most certainly be described as an active field of warfare from 1914 to 1918.
Again in this regard I am sorry to notice that no legislation is proposed to change the War Veterans Allowance Act to increase the ceilings on permissible income, as proposed in the Legion brief of November 10, 1955. The Legion is very thankful for the increases made in the War Veterans Allowance Act legislation last year, but feels that the amounts are not sufficient and that the ceilings on permissible income should have been raised to $1,200 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man. I also think it is a pity that other recommendations made in the Legion brief apparently were not given favourable consideration by the government.
The second matter I should like to mention at this time has reference to the Income Tax Act. I am certainly very sorry to observe that no legislation is proposed to amend the Income Tax Act. At the last session of this parliament the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) presented certain criticisms of the Income Tax Act, and I may say that the citizens of many parts of this country also have many criticisms to offer of that act. I should like to point out in this regard that my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex East, has a resolution on the order paper and no doubt when it comes before the house these matters will be gone into in considerable detail.
However, there are some observations I should like to make at this time regarding the Income Tax Act and proposed amendments thereto. I think possibly the Department of National Revenue might very well be renamed the department of archaeology, not only because some members of that department seem to delight in delving into the past but because they seem to extend their digging and delving so far back into the past that they could properly be called archaeologists.

No longer speaking in a spirit of levity, I believe some time limit should be placed on the authority of the Department of National Revenue to make reassessments. Theoretically they can go back as far as 1917, and it seems to me that some time limit, say two or three years, should be sufficient unless, of course, the department can prove fraud. In that case I think the time limit should be extended farther back, but if so the onus should certainly be placed on the department to prove fraud and the onus should not be, as it is at the moment, on the person charged to prove that he is not guilty.
I should like to add one further qualification there. It is possible that from an administrative point of view this suggestion might not work out too well with large corporations, but it would certainly work out very well with farmers, small businessmen and individuals. It is a very difficult thing for a small businessman, a farmer or other individual to keep his records forever, and apparently you cannot get a clearance from the Department of National Revenue to allow you to destroy old records. As I have already mentioned, how far back is a person expected to keep his records? This situation places a person in a very difficult position when he is suddenly investigated by the Department of National Revenue and asked
Business of the House
where he got the money to buy a radio five or six years previously. This particularly applies to farmers, and it makes everyone exceedingly apprehensive.
I see it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and at this time I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Nesbitt the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, according to the rules I find that a minister of the crown has to designate the days for this debate. If I were to state now that it was the intention of the government to use all the days next week for this debate I would hope that, while that would be taken as notice to that effect, if it became necessary or desirable to alter the procedure my present declaration would not preclude me from changing the order if I notified the house on the preceding evening.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just by way of information, what change has the minister in mind that might occur?


Walter Edward Harris: None whatever, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January IE, 1956