1956-01-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Can the minister say whether or not the government has given further consideration to recognizing the Peking government as the de facto government of China?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government is giving, and will continue to give, careful consideration to this important question, as it does to all important diplomatic developments.


STATEMENT ON REPORTED SHIPMENT OF AIRCRAFT TO EGYPT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Recently there have been two questions asked by hon. members opposite which dealt with the export of military equipment from Canada. The questions concerned at least three departments of the Canadian government, but possibly I may try to answer them now.
Last Wednesday the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) asked the following question:
Have any aircraft been shipped from Canada to Egypt recently, or are there any orders on hand for the export of such aircraft?
If by "recently" the hon. member meant, as I assume he meant, during the last few months when there have been disturbing developments in the Middle East, there have been no such orders received for the export of aircraft to Egypt. However, early last summer it was agreed after consideration to issue a permit, in consequence of an order received, for the export from Canada to Egypt of 15 reconditioned Harvard training aircraft of world war II vintage. These are, of course, not combat aircraft. My information is that up to the present only a small part of this order-three aircraft, I believe-has been shipped.
I might add a word on the general policy regarding the export of arms from this country. Such export is controlled under the Export and Import Permits Act, 1954. Applications for permission to export military equipment are considered by the departments of external affairs, trade and commerce and national defence in consultation, before permission is granted or refused.
In considering such applications we recognize, as does the United Nations charter, that all countries have the right of legitimate selfdefence. To exercise this right means in practice, of course, that they are entitled to maintain military establishments for that purpose and to make or buy weapons to equip them. While our sales of military equipment are necessarily on a very modest scale, we are prepared, as are other countries, to export weapons, but only subject to certain considerations which I might outline briefly.
As a general rule the government's policy re export of military equipment varies with the circumstances and with the destination of the shipments. Thus, arms are exported fairly freely to NATO and to commonwealth countries. None may be sold to countries of the Soviet bloc. Shipments to areas of unrest or possible local conflict are either refused or limited and, in the latter case, allowed only after the closest scrutiny to ensure that such sales do not exceed the legitimate defensive needs of such countries or constitute themselves a threat to neighbouring countries.
By and large, the government follows in this matter policies similar to those of the United Kingdom and the United States in respect of most areas and in all appropriate cases we consult with those governments in respect of requests received for military equipment.


REPORTED EXPORT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question addressed yesterday by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) to my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) concerning the ship Star of Assuan, I am informed that the Star of Assuan, which sailed from Halifax during
184	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the week end, carried the following mutual aid material and equipment for Turkey, Greece and Portugal:
36 world war II artillery tractors and spares for Turkey. These tractors are four-wheel drive trucks and do not carry guns.
32 4-7 naval guns with spares and ancillaries for Turkey.
Spares for electronic equipment and for aircraft for Turkey. Greece and Portugal.
These mutual aid items, which were made available by the Canadian government, were allocated by the standing group of NATO and were shipped on a bill of lading arranged in the usual way by the Canadian maritime commission on the Star of Assuan.
The whole matter constituted an entirely normal NATO arrangement for the provision by Canada of mutual aid to our allies Greece, Turkey and Portugal.
The ship also carried the three Harvard aircraft for Egypt to which I referred earlier.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could find out and tell us for our information if these non-combat planes were fitted with gun mountings and in any event how far have they been stripped down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall try to secure that information but I do not know how you could put a gun mounting on a Harvard training aircraft.


INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE VISIT OF MINISTER TO ISRAEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the situation in the Middle East, can the minister give a statement to the house and the country on this situation, and would he also indicate his attitude to a request which has become somewhat general that in view of his visit last fall to Egypt and in order to equalize Canada's position in the Middle East he give consideration also to visiting Israel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to deal with both these matters when an opportunity arises for a debate on external affairs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) inquired with respect to the provision of helicopter service for search and rescue work on the west coast.


In reply, I may say I find that for some time past one helicopter has normally been attached to the Royal Canadian Air Force search and rescue unit at Sea island near Vancouver. It is there now and is expected to remain there continuously to carry out search and rescue duties as and when required.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: May I ask a
supplementary question? How many helicopters has the Royal Canadian Navy at the present time?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I cannot answer offhand how many helicopters the Royal Canadian Navy has at the moment; I will find out for my hon. friend.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the minister's statement yesterday that the government pays some attention to reports of parliamentary committees, will he recommend the appointment of a special committee to consider recommending an increase in the amount of the old age pension in accordance with the increase in the gross national product since 1949 when the present figure of $40 a month was set?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend, who is a very good parliamentarian, knows as well as I do that before a minister can indicate to the house his intentions they must be communicated first of all to his colleagues in the government. I would be expected, of course, to observe that practice.
But seriously I may tell my hon. friend that I believe that at the beginning of the session I should say to him in a friendly way, in view of his interest in these questions, that he ought to appreciate the position that the administration finds itself in in these matters. Yesterday I indicated that we are having a conference with the provinces on January 23 to discuss the question of health insurance, a question of great interest to this country and one involving the expenditure of considerable sums of money.
I believe my hon. friend ought to place himself in the position in which the government, in these matters, seeks to place itself. I should like, finally, to say that I regard the old age security program-while the $40 may not be as much as all of us would like

to see-on balance, as representing the most generous old age security system of any country in the world. A further consideration is that it is the only old age security system in the world that at the age of 70 provides a non-means-test arrangement. When my hon. friend seeks to prod me, and I do not mind it because I know he does it in a kindly way, I think in fairness he ought to temper his attitude and be a little more responsible in the interrogations he puts day after day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a
supplementary question? Is he aware of the fact that since the present figure of $40 was set the gross national product has gone up by over 60 per cent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I am aware of the fact.
I am aware as well that under this system more than 700,000 Canadians are receiving old age security benefits, and the fact that the cost of living goes up and goes down does not alter the fact that-


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: When did it go
down last?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It went down last year, for
my hon. friend's information. I should like again to impress upon my hon. friend that we have an old age security system of which we need not be ashamed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the view of those who are trying to live on it.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSION OF NEW TAX PROPOSALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether another federal-provincial conference will be held to discuss the latest tax proposals, in the hope that a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There has been no decision made
in that regard, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION ON MARKETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have not given the minister notice of this question but I hope he will take this as such notice.
In view of the minister's failure yesterday to deal with the two-price system of wheat
Inquiries of the Ministry marketing, as requested by the pools and farm union organizations, can we assume that the government plans on introducing such legislation at this session of parliament?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government has considered various proposals put forward by organizations in the prairies, among them the two-price system. We decided on other plans that achieved the same purpose. We considered the two-price system, but we decided instead to give help on storage of grain owned by the wheat board. It is not the intention to proceed further with the two-price system.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REPORTED ROBBERY AT OSHAWA OFFICE OF COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct this question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence the Minister of Finance might possibly answer the question. Are there any further developments regarding the robbery yesterday at Oshawa involving unemployment funds?
The second question is this. Is it the standard practice to pay unemployment insurance funds in cash?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I am not familiar with what occurred in Oshawa yesterday and I shall have to get an answer. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could make it on his return.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) yesterday directed to me the following question:
Does the government propose to enforce closure on the sockeye salmon fishing on the Canadian side of the strait of Juan de Fuca this year? If so, what steps are being taken to ensure that Canadian fishermen are assured of their fair share of the catch?
To the first part of the question the answer is that sockeye salmon fishing in the strait of Juan de Fuca is regulated by the international sockeye salmon commission. The government is only called upon to enforce the regulations adopted in accordance with the authority invested in the commission under the sockeye salmon convention between Canada and the United States.
186	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
The commission is composed of three representatives from each country, and no regulation can be adopted unless it is voted affirmatively by at least two commissioners from each country.
No regulation of a nature referred to by the hon. member has been adopted by the commission.
To the second part of the question the answer is that the same convention provides for an equal division in so far as possible of the catch between the fishermen of Canada and the United States. In the past this provision of the convention has been given due effect by the commission in adopting any regulations, and there is no reason to think that the commission would propose to adopt any regulation in the future which would have a different effect.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a supplementary question? Could the parliamentary assistant inform me as to the date of the next sitting of the commission?


John Watson MacNaught: Saturday of this week.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 16, 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. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned last evening, I advocated that it was the duty of the government to provide our mining companies with relatively cheap power, which is the key to a balanced economy for the future, so earnestly desired by our entire Canadian population. Should it be found that a full-scale development of the Saint John river is not the logical answer to our power problem in New Brunswick, we have other alternatives to offer. Hydroelectric alone may not be sufficient to supply New Brunswick's industries with their power requirements. Construction of high pressure steam electric plants using large turbine generators will have to compensate for our limited sources of water supply available for generating power. We have in New Brunswick, and more so in Nova Scotia, huge coal deposits which could be used advantageously for generating power provided its production cost could be reduced and assurance of low cost money could be provided during the initial stage of development.


I do not advocate a give-away policy by any government whether federal or provincial, but this may be a case where the federal government would be well advised to subsidize as a maritime project the water transportation of coal from the Cape Breton coal mines to a large generating plant located somewhere along the northeastern shore of New Brunswick. After all, is not the federal government actually subsidizing the transportation of coal to a maximum of $2.50 per ton for straight all-rail movement to points in central Canada, and this for the benefit of local industries there? I feel quite confident that if the government were prepared to subsidize the transportation of coal to a large generating plant located in the mining area of northern New Brunswick to an amount equal to $2.50 per ton the cost of generating power could be reduced to a level acceptable to our mining industries.
Canadian National Railways now have under construction a new line which will cost over $35 million to serve the mining district of Chibougamau. Would it not be logical to ask the federal government to do as much to assure the development of New Brunswick mining resources by helping to finance power generating plants? I must also not disregard the major role which will be played by atomic energy in the future of our economic growth and expansion. We should have soon, even now, the assurance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the first practical atomic reactor to be used to produce electric energy for commercial purposes in Canada will be built in New Brunswick. This assurance would be a stimulant to our mining companies which are now investing millions of dollars and would give hope of retaining in New Brunswick the milling, refining and complete utilization of sulphur and other associated chemical industries which would necessarily follow.
The sharing or participation of the federal government in the cost of financing an adequate source of power for New Brunswick's mining industries should be regarded as a special circumstance and as part of a policy which can be justified on national grounds. Such a decision will strengthen our entire economy and provide the balanced rate of economic growth within Canada which is essential to assure unity in our population and unity in our economy.
I realize that the hon. member who preceded me last night is far from being satisfied with the policy adopted by the present government in order to help the New Brunswick potato farmers-


Mr. Van Horne:: That is right.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -in disposing of their crop.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is very true, sir.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It may be true that the price offered is lower by far than the $5 per barrel promised to the farmers of his constituency by the hon. member during his election campaign last fall.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is wrong, sir. You are a liar.* That is not correct.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is correct. Every farm had a poster out in front of it with the candidate's name on it and promising $5 per barrel for potatoes. The hon. member is asking the federal government to build the Cross Point-Campbellton bridge. The hon. member should be made aware that last March the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) made an announcement in the house to the effect that the federal government would pay its share of the construction of this interprovincial bridge.
The hon. member should address his request to the government of the province of Quebec and to the premier of New Brunswick and ask them if they are prepared to come across with their share of the project as they promised so often before the federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) made the announcement that the federal government was prepared to pay its share.


Mr. Ferguson:: It does not hurt to lose his seat. Of all the cry-babies I have ever heard, the hon. member is the worst.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member will have his opportunity to make his speech.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have it now. [DOT]


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When the hon. member accused our able Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) of inactivity and indifference in the manner in which he lately has been conducting the affairs of his department, was he really sincere and was he aware of the fact that under his leadership and guidance his department is spending over one billion dollars a year of the Canadian taxpayers' money for the welfare of the Canadian people? Is he aware of the fact that in order to double family allowances, the Canadian taxpayers would have to pay an extra $380 million a year and that in order to increase the old age pension by $20 a month another $180 million would have to be appropriated? He should tell us if his leader and the other members of his party are prepared to advocate this additional expenditure of $560 million to be added to the burden of the already heavily taxed Canadian taxpayer.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
The hon. member mentioned additional help for mental hospitals. Is he aware of the fact that the federal government has contributed over $1 million to build a new mental hospital in his own town of Campbellton? I would say that our present Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware of the needs of the citizens of Canada. A matter of great importance, as the minister just stated a few moments ago, namely the establishment of a health insurance policy, is now under serious study. I am confident that the Canadian public would prefer to see the implementation of this welfare legislation rather than the doubling of family allowances.


Mr. Brooks:: Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare write your speech?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Was the hon. member expressing the policy of his party when he said in French last night-and he was careful to say it in French so that even the members of his own party could not follow him too closely-as follows, as reported at page 176 of Hansard:
(Translation) :
When will the government recognize that, before giving over a billion dollars to England, it should give something to Canadian citizens?
(Text):
Such nonsensical, exaggerated and wild statement's may pass unnoticed in an election campaign but not before this House of Commons.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You had your chance last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member who has the floor please address himself to the chair? At this juncture I understand that the hon. member for Rest'igouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) is rising on a question of privelege. Will he be kind enough to state his question of privelege?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is this the hon. member who is known in New Brunswick as the fellow who is always asleep in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Last night the hon. member asked for regulations promoting and enforcing the development, the manufacture, the processing and the use of the idle and wasting natural resources of the maritimes such as timber limits now owned and controlled by a few, immobilized by them and going to waste. He asked for regulations controlling the exportation of raw products such as pulpwood in an unprocessed and unmanufactured state.
*See also pages 225-26.

The Address-Mr. Rohichaud
1 would remind the hon. member that crown lands are strictly under provincial jurisdiction, and that he should direct his request again to the government of New Brunswick, with whom he is so closely related.
(Translation) :
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the house an unfortunate situation which affects a large number of electors in my constituency and more particularly the 6,000 residents of Shippigan and Miscou islands. As I stated before the house last year, those residents are served by a ferry during the shipping season but, in the wintertime, their only means of communication is an ice bridge.
I understand that the construction of a bridge between Shippigan island and the mainland is primarily a provincial responsibility. The provincial authorities might have already undertaken the erection of that bridge had not the cost of the work been greatly increased due to the fact that a navigation channel must be left free to enable the fishing boats of the district to go to their fishing grounds. However since the maintenance of navigable waters comes under federal jurisdiction, I think that the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works would be justified in sharing in the construction of that bridge.
Those of us who live in the district are aware of the difficulties and hardships of those islanders, especially during the period preceding the formation of the ice bridge between the island and the mainland. On December 9 last, the ferry boat was seriously damaged and it was only a month later that service could be half restored.
I must say that hundreds of residents of Shippigan island volunteered their services and worked long hours without pay to cut the ice and open a channel that would enable the ferry to resume operations. All this time, the islanders were without coal or fuel oil and, in many cases, lacked essential supplies. There was, too, the sad spectacle of sick people being transported in men-drawn sleds across treacherous ice for emergency hospital treatment on the mainland.
During the holiday season, there was a delay of five or six days before mail could be delivered to the various post offices on those two islands. Their residents rely essentially, for their livelihood, on the fishing in-

dustry and on field moss. Huge quantities of fish and moss ready for shipment could not be shipped owing to the lack of transportation; the economy of that area was therefore seriously affected.
I am not in a position to confirm whether the New Brunswick provincial authorities called on the federal government to invite them to share in the construction of a bridge between Shippigan island and the mainland. Under normal conditions, this construction would be essentially a provincial matter but, as I mentioned earlier, since the cost of that construction is substantially increased on account of navigation, I believe that the federal government should take part in that project.
May I express here my appreciation to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for the co-operation given us by his department for the improvement of facilities in the fishing centres of Gloucester county. However, I regret that, so far, we have been unable to get a favourable decision for some improvements to the docks of Maisonnette and for the construction of a wharf at Petite-Riviere-de-l'lle. I realize that these two fishing centres have difficulties which are embarrassing enough and hard to solve for the departmental engineers but I still think that the Department of Public Works should be in a position to meet these problems and to give its early approval to these two projects. The residents of those two centres are fishermen first and foremost and have no other means of providing a living for their families. It is not reasonable to expect them to continue operating in such conditions? Those good fishermen deserve more favourable consideration on the part of the federal authorities.
I would not like to resume my seat without asking the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to give favourable consideration to a revision of the new Unemployment Insurance Act with a view to extending its benefits to this large number of seasonal workers at present excluded from its provisions. I also support the request made by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) and express the wish that these fishermen may be allowed to come in under this legislation as soon as possible.
(Text):


Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hope to emulate the enthusiasm of both hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick.

One thing I did notice-and I would congratulate them upon it-is that they are so perfectly bilingual it must be convenient at times to call each other names in either language.
As most hon. members know, I come from a city constituency. The members of my group who have spoken up to the moment have come from rural constituencies, and they are concerned with the question of wheat and its marketing. Since I come from a city which is in the centre of the wheat country, a city whose reason for existence is service to the farmers who live in that wheat country, and whose livelihood depends on the prosperity of the farmers in that country, I shall make no apology for trying to reflect some of the opinions that are being expressed in and around my city. Even our industries are geared to farming, because there we have great storage elevators. The dominion government has a storage elevator there. We have flour mills, packing plants, a vegetable oil extracting factory, and so on. Therefore, we are dependent upon agriculture, which is all around us. This is acknowledged, of course, by other people, even by labour, who have passed resolutions in regard to the question of farm advances upon stored grain. They, if their resolutions are any indication, are almost as anxious about the question as the farmers themselves.
I hold in my hand a copy of a report which says that Mr. F. W. McClelland, president of the Saskatoon and district labour council, issued a statement deploring the tie-up of grain. He said that it was giving his organization serious worry. This, he says, is a very serious situation, as lack of money in the farmers' pockets means not only hardship for the farmers, but also reduces business for businessmen and industry, and results at times in labour lay-offs. This is the meat of the resolution that was passed. It asks that the government guarantee cash advances to farmers on grain stored upon the farms; so much for the opinion of labour.
One might have thought that perhaps the pronouncements of the government and the pronouncement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and the fact that certain legislation was on the order paper by way of the speech from the throne, might have stilled, as it were, the controversy that is taking place. But I hold in my hand the issue of the Star-Phoenix of January 11, which was printed after the contents of the speech from the throne were known. It contains a picture of an assembly of people and says that more than 500 persons crowded into convocation hall of the university Tuesday afternoon to hear a panel discuss
The Address-Mr. Knight Canada's grain marketing difficulties. This grain marketing problem, of course, is a longterm one.
Apart from the need of getting money immediately into the hands of farmers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday morning dealt with some of the western demands-I think I should say the C.C.F. demands also because what we have advocated has been much in line with what the farmers themselves are advocating in the west. To remind you of them, sir, I wish to read a few of them. Immediate advance payments are recommended; use of barter trade where that is practical, and would not interfere with labour in this country. The acceptance of sterling and other soft currency programs for assistance to underprivileged nations should be stepped up and increased, and we should have a more efficient staff of salesmen for Canadian wheat throughout the world.
The minister dealt with some or perhaps all of those points yesterday. I was going to comment that he had not mentioned, for I had noticed it too, the matter of a proposed differential between the domestic and the export price. But my hon. friend the member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) raised the point this morning, and the minister has made his comments on that, so I will not need to deal with it.
While I am not a technical expert, we are fortunate in this group in having one or two young men who are themselves graduates in agriculture who are themselves farmers, and who are particularly interested in the question now before the house and the country, men who have made a close study of figures and statistics. That is not in my line, so I shall refrain from trying to do it.
I would like to comment on the general attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He said that he was at a meeting or two in the west and I think he mentioned Edmonton, perhaps, in particular. He did mention the meeting of wheat pool delegates in convention at the city of Regina. He spoke there on one day and he said he had heard the delegates there did favour the resolution on advance payments. I think he played this down, a resolution which favoured advances on farm-stored grain; a resolution which, may I say, is endorsed practically unanimously in the west. I am talking now about farmers irrespective of their political opinions on other matters.
As to this playing down, and as to the assertion by the minister that there is a lack of unanimity and that sort of thing, what are the facts? Well, as for the playing down of

The Address-Mr. Knight the wheat pool resolution, one cannot do that very well. It has been attempted before. Now I am not mentioning this politically at all but it did happen. It was Mr. McDonald, who leads the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, who asserted that the result of the wheat pool convention was that the delegates were quite in agreement with what the government was doing. The wheat pool hastened, through some of its officers, I know not who, to deny that particular assertion, and so it was obvious that Mr. McDonald had been either misinformed or misquoted. The statement put out by the wheat pool says:
Over the years, the policy of the wheat pool organization is laid down by the delegates in annual meeting. When the pool delegates convened for the 31st annual meeting on November 1, the regular order of business was suspended-
They must have thought it pretty important.
-in order to undertake a special discussion on the emergency situation in farm finance.
Then there followed a complete discussion of the whole situation and the delegates passed a resolution as follows:
That we urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on farm-stored grain.
They did pass other resolutions. I do not think I need to give them to the house. I have no intention of cutting that one out from the other resolutions, and if anyone wishes I shall be pleased to read them. I skip a bit and go on:
The policy of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, as approved by its delegates in annual meeting, is clear-cut.
Then, I have underlined this.
It does not favour the government's proposal for bank loans.
Well, so far as playing down the decision of the wheat pool delegates is concerned, I think I have given the answer. As well as those meetings attended by the minister and by other members, I am sure by Liberal members of this house, there were other meetings. As a matter of fact there were hundreds of meetings. I can mention the meeting at Regina where my genial friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) was debating with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), and may I say that my sympathy in that case was with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, irrespective of what the subject was.
However, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants any information as to the real feeling at that particular meeting, he can certainly get it in detail from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who, I am sure, would admit the almost unanimous support 
for cash advances there. Then there was the farm conference at Saskatoon, and I have the minutes of the meeting before me, but I will not weary you with them. I see across from me the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). You may be sure if the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants a correct analysis of the opinion of that meeting, he could get it from the hon. member for Rosthern. The meeting at Saskatoon, was billed as a farm conference but it was not exactly that, because it was made up of representatives for various organizations, representatives of the grain trade for example. Some of the ministers of agriculture, I think from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, were there. I do not think the minister of agriculture for Alberta was there. The cooperatives were represented, school trustees and labour and so on. Numerous resolutions were passed.
Let me read you one that stands out. I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, from the Co-operative Consumer of October 7. This resolution was,
I think, the main resolution at the conference:
. . . the conference urged the federal government to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on grain they had in store up to the value of one-half the normal delivery expected.
Then it makes some provisions as to how these advances should be paid and so forth. Skipping a little bit, further down it says:
It was also stressed that this was an advance and not a loan.
Well, that was the farm conference at Saskatoon. I do not think there is any doubt about what those people thought about what the government should do. I did not intend to mention what follows but I happened to see it, in the same paper. I might say the co-operatives in our province are playing a more and more potent and meaningful role in public life. I have here a copy of a night letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) from George Urwin, president of the Federated Co-operatives Limited, in which he says:
Respectfully suggest prompt action on request from conference of representatives from all sections of our economy concluded in Saskatoon yesterday. Lack of purchasing power through inability to market grain causing severe hardship which can only be remedied by immediate action by your government in respect to the requests of the conference.
There is not much hesitancy or doubt there about what those people at Saskatoon asked for and really wanted despite the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce plays down those requests, and says they were not unanimous. He says there was a difference of opinion among those farmers as to what they actually wanted. Now an immediate

result of that conference at Saskatoon was that a delegation from that conference was sent here to Ottawa. There, I think, was one place where the minister got his idea there was a lack of unanimity. I have already explained that conference consisted not of farmers alone but a wide representation of other interests in addition.
Now in a case like that the only kind of resolution you can get passed is a resolution which will compel unanimity. When this delegation came to Ottawa and presented its resolutions, there was a storm of anger among the farmers in the west. Some of them said the delegation had scuttled the Saskatchewan conference and it was a milk and water affair that was presented to the government. As far as the farmers of that conference were concerned, they were very irascible indeed about the alleged neglect of that particular delegation to press home the point which the farmers wanted to make. I think that explains to some extent why that delegation was not as forceful as it might have been.
Yesterday the minister linked up the C.C.F. with these particular resolutions, but I may say that it is not particularly a C.C.F. business. Liberal farmers are just as concerned as other people. It is interesting to note that the Liberal association of Saskatoon made quite a point of the interest being too high. One gentleman attending that meeting was quite indignant and said that the 5J per cent rate was exorbitant when the Canadian wheat board could borrow money at 31 per cent. At that time they did not know whether the rate would be 5 or 5J per cent. Those are not my words, they are the words of a member of the local Liberal association. Another speaker was very critical of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for not, and so on and so forth.
I do not know whether there was any significance in this, but that particular meeting of the association was called to appoint officers for the coming year and the president and secretary of the association both gave notice that they would not be available.
Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in the province, had something to say about the interest rate, and I think he made the most amazing contribution of all in regard to that matter. I have here a report which appeared in a November issue of the Star-Phoenix referring to a statement made by Mr. McDonald. If Mr. McDonald ever becomes premier of the province I hope he does not take on the treasury portfolio. The report stated that Mr. McDonald had indicated that a majority of the loans would be repaid in six months and the interest rate thus would amount to only 21 per cent rather
The Address-Mr. Knight than 5 per cent. Mr. McDonald would be most valuable to the small loan companies in this country in connection with their rather non-understandable interest rates.
I must find fault with the insinuation- the press took even more than that out of it -by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who must have been angry, as I do not think he really meant it, that somehow the C.C.F. by what it was advocating was opposing the wheat board system of marketing. The minister knows better than that. Everyone in the country who is interested knows better than that. That type of marketing is a fundamental part of our philosophy and there is no question about that.
I was at a number of meetings and they certainly endorsed the wheat board system of marketing. I never in all my life heard anyone take such a drilling as did Mr. Stanley Jones, president of the Winnipeg grain exchange, in the town of Swan River in northern Manitoba. I was there and I heard 300 angry and very earnest farmers, all of whom were in favour of advance payments on grain, do everything to that man except lay hands on him. He escaped, but that is about all. I would point out that a great number, a proportion at least of those farmers at that particular meeting, were C.C.F. people and they certainly were in support of the wheat board method of marketing. As I say, I never knew a man to get such a going-over.
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) over there and perhaps I should modify my previous statement by mentioning that at the meeting at Minnedosa I understand he was drilled until the small hours of the morning by another group of farmers who apparently had about the same opinion as most of the farmers in western Canada.


Mr. Garson:: I know my hon. friend is most anxious to be fair and I believe he will accept a correction in his remarks. A large number of good citizens of that district came out and asked questions, which it was perfectly proper for them to do. They argued things out with their member until the small hours of the morning. In this I think they showed an appreciation of the proper usages of democracy.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am quite prepared to accept the minister's statement. Perhaps he did not feel things quite as badly as they were represented in the press. But I would point out that the farmers argued with the minister until that time. Would the minister not say that they were opposed to the actions of the government in this particular regard. I think the minister was quite fair in saying that this discussion was a perfectly proper one.
192	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knight


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, I would say that he is quite right. If people were opposed to the government policy I think the proper thing for them to do was to come to a public meeting and make their views known. The proper thing for their member to do was to go there and explain the position of the government; and then come back and explain to his colleagues the position his constituents had taken. That is the way democracy works.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister and I are perfectly in agreement, but the point I am making is that the farmers who were at that meeting were opposed to present government policy in connection with this grain business. They were in favour of cash advances.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, Mr. Speaker-my friend-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Unless you are taking time off, Mr. Speaker, I must object.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not taking time off, but having asked a question the hon. member, I think, should definitely clear up this matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am really rising on a question of privilege because my friend has imputed to me and to those who took part in that meeting a statement which is not completely correct. My hon. friend stated that those present at that meeting were opposed to the present policy which we have now been discussing in this chamber. As a matter of fact one of the important requests made at that meeting is being implemented by the present government policy now under discussion.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We are not discussing that at the moment. The opinion which the farmers had at that time was different from their opinion now after having seen the legislation on the order paper. I do not think the minister has any point at all. With reference to this insinuation that somehow or other the C.C.F. was advocating the scuttling of the wheat board, it is most interesting to note that this insinuation was made by such an important man as the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Therefore I think it should be denied and denied here and now. I do not think anyone will suggest that Mr. Douglas of the province of Saskatchewan does not represent the C.C.F. There are plenty of others, but he certainly does represent them. I should like to direct the attention of the house to a broadcast on provincial affairs which he made on September 28, 1955.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will take note of this statement made by Mr. Douglas:
We in the west must continue to support the two basic principles for which the farmers have 

fought throughout the years. The first of these is the Canadian wheat board and an orderly system of marketing, and the second is the international wheat agreement designed to establish an equitable price for wheat as between exporting and importing countries. Any changes in policy which would undermine these two basic principles would set western agriculture back a quarter of a century and must be resisted.
Let the Minister of Trade and Commerce put that in his pipe and smoke it. As far as I am concerned I do not think I need emphasize this because the minister as much as anybody else in this house knows that there was misrepresentation in the statement made. One must not get angry about these things.
Speaking of anger, let me assure the minister that the anger of the farmers in the prairie provinces is genuine. As far as the loan proposal is concerned, it has been treated everywhere as a joke. My Liberal friends will bear me out on that if they are completely honest. The minister will remember similar legislation in 1951, a time when some of the farmers were unfortunate enough to have their grain under the snow. I have forgotten the name of the bill but, at any rate, there was $20 million available for loans, and the farmers of western Canada used between $600,000 and $650,000 only. Does that show that they appreciated the gesture of the government?
Who are these farmers? I have met many of them. I saw 400 or 500 farmers in connection with this particular matter about which I am speaking. For all the Minister of Trade and Commerce's attendance at meetings, I doubt that he gets into the farm kitchen and hears the farm wife discuss these matters. Perhaps he is too big a man to attend these meetings, but somebody should tell him what the people are saying. They are saying, "Why is the price of wheat cheaper to the Canadian producer than it is to any other producers in the world? If the United States is giving away wheat and ruining our market, at least it is wheat for which the United States farmer has already been paid through subsidization." Or he will ask, "What is wrong with subsidization anyway? Is not the gold mining industry subsidized? Are not the railways subsidized?" What is not subsidized nowadays? Is not industrial production subsidized, as my hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) will agree, by tariffs we have imposed against imported goods?
There is some support from a rather unexpected quarter. I have a dispatch here from Neepawa, Manitoba, which says:
The chief commissioner of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada Thursday laid part of the blame for the present wheat surplus problem at the feet of the protected industry of the east . . .

D. G. McKenzie defended the western farmer *'ho, he said, is being accused of asking the rest of the country to subsidize his products.
When one looks back over the last 80 years, Mr. McKenzie said, it is obvious that the manufacturers started government subsidies.
Many farmers say, "Why should I pay 5 per cent interest on my summer's wages that I have not yet received, for which I have worked all summer or maybe for two summers? I owe money to the man who supplies my gasoline, to the grocery store and other local people. These people are not charging me interest at the moment. They have my sympathy, but why should I go to the bank and increase my indebtedness by 5 per cent in respect to the amounts of funds the bank would advance to me?" It is a reasonable argument. It is so reasonable that they are not going to the banks to borrow much money, as my banker friends tell me.
That is most of the material I wish to bring forward with regard to the question of wheat. I may come back to it later.
There is another small but important matter with which I should like to deal, and that is the need for a change in the regulations regarding unemployment insurance. The amendment, of course, is not working out. The effect of it is that it is even more difficult for persons seasonally employed to draw the benefits than was the case before the amendment was passed.
This country suffers from the vagaries of climate. This year winter in Saskatoon came upon us in October. Some people could not qualify for the 30 weeks because they were laid off in the middle of October, and they could not get the supplementary benefit for their unemployment until 1st of January of 1956. I understand that, once having received it, they can then draw it for some months. These people had to face the Christmas holidays and the cold weather and the need to purchase fuel, without a job and without money. That matter has been taken up with the Minister of Labour. I wired to him myself and have had some response from him. He assured me that these regulations will be reviewed. Our climate is cold and uncertain. The people concerned are mostly civic workers, men in the employ of the city who have been working in the parks and in various outdoor jobs. Their plight is shared also by several types of construction labour.
There is another matter which is perhaps unimportant to the house but is a rather strange situation. A person mailing a letter in a certain section of our city for another section of our city has to pay five cents postage instead of four cents. That is due to the fact that the railway town of Sutherland, not far distant from Saskatoon, has been amalgamated, municipally speaking, with the city, but 67509-13
The Address-Mr. Knight the postal arrangements were slow in being finalized. That is why that strange situation arose. I would say more about it, and would certainly make demands on the government in regard to it, but I am pleased to be able to inform the house and the people in my own constituency that that is no longer necessary. I understand instructions have gone out that the postal rates between the various parts of our city will now be equated as soon as the arrangements can be made.
In the time left at my disposal, there are one or two matters in general in regard to which I should like to express some disappointment with this government. I think I shall be excused for doing that. My hon. friend suggests that the time is rather limited to deal with the faults of this government. One would need a rather longer period than we are allowed. The government is losing face in this country. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), whom we used to look upon as a sort of benevolent despot- did I say "despot"? I did not intend to.


An hon. Member:: Right the first time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -as a benevolent gentleman, is losing some of the appeal he had. Somebody told me the title he would give a book if he were writing the life story of the present Prime Minister. I see my friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) looking at me. May I say I think it is too bad that a tremendously picturesque character and a man of undoubted ability such as our Minister of Agriculture should have had written about him a biography that does not at all do justice in its writing to the subject with whom it is concerned.


Mr. Gardiner:: You write one.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he would do a better job.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I say to the minister's suggestion that I should do a much better job if I had the time. With regard to the Prime Minister, this friend of mine suggested that, if he were writing a book about the present Prime Minister, the title should be, "The Man Who Always Says No". It was a westerner who suggested that title. To the suggestion for cash advances, the answer was no. To the suggestion for the Saskatchewan dam, the answer was no. To our repeated demands for national health insurance, the answer is a sort of quavering no, but still a no up to the present time. My own plea for federal aid to education? No. The demand for an arts council? No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: An increase in taxation? No.

The Address-Mr. Knight


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Plans for increased economic aid to underprivileged countries?


Mr. Mclvor:: Yes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No. Sometimes I do not blame the Prime Minister as much as I blame some of the people behind him, and if I have time I should like to tell you a story in that regard. I cannot review the world situation in this speech, but I was thinking that our diplomatic efforts have not been too successful. I was thinking that if virtue were measured in terms of miles travelled then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) would be a great man. But it is not, and I am led to the conclusion that in certain directions-I am not quite sure that it is not in every direction-we are losing this thing that we call the cold war. I am not too sure about it.


Mr. Sluder:: Or anything else.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think we have missed our trump card, economic aid.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I think you are using the discards.


Irvin William Studer: You are playing with the discards.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The total amount of economic aid that this nation has given has been niggardly. It is not only that we do not support and aid this sort of thing but we have actually opposed it. Back in 1954 we refused to join a scheme for economic development under the auspices of the United Nations. We did not support that plea for economic assistance. We have noted the desire for a lessening of defence expenditures. I hope this will be feasible but in my opinion as we decrease our defence expenditures we should proportionately increase our economic assistance. I am thinking chiefly of the Asiatic peoples. I think that anyone who has read the press of late cannot but come to the same conclusion as I have.


An hon. Member:: I hope not.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We are losing the cold war in the matter of technological and other types of education. In my last speech on federal aid I referred to the terrific strides that the Soviet union has been making compared to our efforts.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Give your friends a pat on the back.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Only 10 per cent of the young people of this country between the ages of 18 and 24 avail themselves of higher education. The corresponding figure for the
tMr. Garson.]
United States is 30 per cent and the proportionate figures in other countries, with whose political philosophy we do not agree, are pretty terrific.


Irvin William Studer: Do not be too sure.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The peculiar part of it is that in the matter of education we have no plans. In another year twice as many people in this age group will be knocking at the doors of our educational institutions as are doing so today, and we have no imaginative program to take care of them. Why do we persist in this country with what amounts to starvation of education? A larger share at least of the production of our expanding economy should be used for education instead of being put back into capital investment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am sorry, time will not allow me to permit a question at the moment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask that before you take your seat-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No. Not only do we not encourage educational advance but we seem able only to think of economic and material improvement.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Why do you not read the Soviet bulletin that they issue every week?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What about the needs of the mind? When I came to the House of Commons eleven years ago, to mention education in the federal parliament was like using a naughty word, almost as the word "peace" has come to be regarded in certain quarters of this country. What are these forces that are holding back the Prime Minister?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The C.C.F.


Irvin William Studer: The socialists.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not completely blame the Prime Minister and I should like to tell a story to indicate why I do not blame him as much as certain forces that must be working upon him somewhere. I attended a meeting of the council on the humanities at the Chateau Laurier a little over a year ago. Educators from across the country were present together with the occasional member of parliament. We were all interested in the creation of an arts council. At the end of the discussion the Prime Minister made an excellent, delightful and interesting speech. When we came away from the meeting one of the delegates put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Well, boy, apparently that is in the bag." I said it would look like it. I said

I had never heard something expressed which was as close to a commitment and yet was not a commitment.
That was the general feeling of the meeting and it was the greatest surprise to me and the others who attended the conference to find that in the next speech from the throne there was no mention at all of that particular subject. I ask why?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and those of the house. I was interrupted and I think I can finish in two minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is, in effect, asking me to inquire of the house whether they wish to give unanimous consent. I would point out that under ordinary circumstances I would be glad to do so, but in a debate with a fixed termination I think the hon. member should consider carefully before he asks me to make such a request. The hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to extend the usual congratulations, in fact, even more so in this case, to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and also to express appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for having our colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), move the address. It is particularly pleasing when she did such a splendid job.
I do not intend to follow altogether the speech just made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) but at the outset, in case I do not get around to it, I think I should deal with what has been said about the marketing conference that was held in Saskatoon last fall because it has been referred to by previous speakers including the hon. member for Saskatoon. I attended the conference and I do not think the record should be left in the indefinite state with respect to it that is now the case because there has been a suggestion that the government has flouted the wishes of the farmers as expressed at the conference in the policy that the government has adopted. As I do not think that is the right inference I believe the record should be put straight.
As already stated, I attended the conference and I also have a copy of the resolutions passed at the conference. It was called by the interprovincial farm union council and was attended by representatives of the various provincial governments, the pools, and
67509-13*
The Address

Mr. Tucker even of labour organizations. One of the reasons for calling the conference was to advise the government as to what western Canada, particularly the farmers of western Canada, wanted done respecting the problem which then faced them due to a shortage of cash having arisen through the farmers not being able to market their grain because of the congestion of the elevator facilities. The first resolution passed by the conference was moved by Mr. McIntosh, who is a member of the provincial government of Saskatchewan, I believe, and seconded by Mr. Hansen, who is the head of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, It reads as follows:
That this conference express its confidence in the Canadian wheat board as a sound method of marketing Canadian grain.
As I recall, that resolution was passed unanimously. That was the thesis upon which this whole conference proceeded.
As one might expect, the next matter that came up for discussion was advances to farmers. I should like to read to the house the resolution passed by this conference on this matter. There was a great deal of discussion on the motion introduced; it was amended, and finally a motion was drawn up which it was thought would pass through that conference. Here is the motion as amended and passed:
Be it resolved that the organizations participating in this conference urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farm, and further that these advances should be up to one-half the value of the normal delivery expected and should be repayable on the basis of one-half of the value Of each delivery made by the farmer.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to two or three significant words in this resolution which was not drawn haphazardly but was drawn in order to meet the wishes of the people attending that conference. It was drawn after a great deal of discussion and after various motions had been made and withdrawn because it was clear that they would not be supported by the conference. I would ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the fact that at this time a great number of requests were being made that advances should be made through the wheat board to the farmers. That suggestion was naturally brought before this conference. It was one of the things definitely advocated by some attending. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that that suggestion was not endorsed. You can see that there is nothing in any way said otherwise than that advances should be provided for. If this conference had intended to endorse the idea of advances against farm-stored grain being made by the wheat board, it would have said so because it was invited to say so. It was quite clear,

The Address-Mr. Tucker however, that that resolution would not pass that conference. The reason why it would not pass the conference, Mr. Speaker, was that the basic idea of the people represented there was that nothing should be done to interfere with the present and future success of the wheat board as our marketing agency. Many people at the conference pointed out that if the wheat board was invited to enter this field its position might be in danger; and it was accepted as fundamental that nothing should be done to endanger the position of the wheat board as our marketing agency.


Mr. Ellis:: You will never sell that idea out west.


Walter Adam Tucker: I may not be able to sell it out west but I am telling about what happened at that conference. It is not my purpose to try to sell anything. It is my purpose to tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.
Something has been said to the effect that it was quite clear that this money was not supposed to be a loan but that it was supposed to be an advance. May I ask why it would have been said that this money should be repayable on the basis of one half the value of each delivery made by the farmer? If this money was not a loan, why should it have been resolved that it should be repayable in a certain way?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: My C.C.F. friends may groan all they want to, but there is only one meaning to that resolution, namely that it was to be an advance and was to be repayable. That was the resolution passed by this conference. As one who was there, it is my duty to put the facts before this house. If the able men who attended this conference had intended to pass a resolution asking the government to make through the wheat board advances that should not be repayable, does anybody think that they would not have drafted a resolution that would have said so in so many words? Of course, Mr. Speaker, they were trying to give advice on the basis of what, first of all, would preserve the wheat board as a marketing agency and, subject to that consideration, would meet the immediate needs of the farmer for cash. There was a difference of opinion as to how it should be done. Some advocated that it should be done through the wheat board's advancing money through the elevator agents. Others at that conference pointed out that this procedure would get the wheat board involved and might do a tremendous amount of harm to the wheat board. The final decision was to draft the resolution in this form and to leave the matter to the government to decide, after hearing representations from the various farm organizations and others there

represented as to what was the best way to do this. But again I say everything was based on the idea that nothing should be done to interfere with the wheat board.
If what was made plain to this house yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had been made plain to that conference, and it was suggested from time to time that the wheat board's position would perhaps be endangered if they were asked to do this, I have no doubt what that conference would have done. If it had been made plain to this conference that the wheat board was absolutely positive that they should not be asked to do it and would not undertake to do it, I have no doubt what that conference would have decided, because it was and is the belief in western Canada that the present wheat board has been doing a good job, that it has done a good job and that nothing must be done to endanger its continued existence.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us this, and I am reading from page 127 of Hansard:
I can tell the house that, if the government instructed the wheat board to lend money on farm-stored grain and assume the responsibility for the lending of that money and its subsequent collection, the four members of the wheat board would be out of office within a matter of days.
I put this to every member of this house: If that proposition had been put to that conference-and bearing in mind they would not endorse it when it was merely the thought of some that the wheat board should not be asked to handle this matter-if they had definitely known that that was the opinion of the wheat board, I put it to the members that that conference would have made even plainer their decision that they did not want to ask for something to be done that was against the considered advice of the wheat board and something which, in their opinion, they could not effectively administer.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: You
cannot intimidate the farmers with that sort of proposition.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend is trying to
twist my words. I am not trying to intimidate anybody. I am putting before the house exactly what happened before this conference and what I think would have been their attitude in an even more pronounced way if they had known for sure the advice that the wheat board was giving. I want to tell my friends of the C.C.F. this. I am sure that their actions must be interpreted by the rest of Canada in a way that they do not like. They keep professing to be favourable to the wheat

board but they continue to find fault with what is being done in respect of the wheat board's work. They continue to ask for things that the wheat board consider they cannot do and still retain the confidence of the farmers of western Canada. Then when my hon. friends are asking for these things, demanding them and stirring up demands for them they say, "We still are the best friends of the wheat board".


Hazen Robert Argue: Who forced the wheat board to distribute box cars? *


Walter Adam Tucker: As to that matter, may I say that the wheat board already have power to do that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister forced them to use it.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend made his speech and I did not interrupt him. I know that it must be unpalatable to him for me to have these actual facts put before this house. My hon. friends may suggest all they want to that this thing cannot be sold to the farmers and that sort of thing. I have taken the attitude that I will try to tell the truth here and will rely on the sense of justice of the people of Saskatchewan to support me in doing so. I am putting before this house what was passed by that conference and what happened at that conference.
The government knew that the conference had refused to endorse the wheat board's being asked to handle this question-had definitely refused to do so. That is something that cannot be denied. Further, they knew the attitude of the wheat board in reference to this matter. They also know the attitude of western Canada which was that the wheat board should not be endangered, as it would have been according to the wheat board's own opinion which they undoubtedly thought should be taken in that regard. Is the government then to be blamed for acting upon the advice of a conference called for that purpose and for doing the thing in a way that appeared to be the only way in which it could be done to provide these advances, namely through the banking system-a procedure which was not refused or turned down by this conference. It was the only way in which it could have been done if it was not to be done through the wheat board, and if the wheat board said: "We cannot do it and we will not do it, and we will not try to do it, and if you destroy us, why that is your responsibility." Then, of course, it seems to me the government did the only thing it could.
I have no fear, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what the people of western Canada will
The Address-Mr. Tucker say if it comes to an actual showdown and they know the facts and that the opposition parties are insisting on demanding that the government load a burden on the wheat board that might break its effectiveness as a marketing agency for western Canada, and that they are insisting on this even at the risk of endangering the wheat board. I am satisfied that the people of western Canada will say that the Liberal government and those who support it did right in doing nothing to endanger the existence of the wheat board. I say that to the C.C.F., and they can make the most of it.
I ask them this question. If the wheat board is of the opinion that farm financing cannot be done properly by the board and still preserve their effectiveness as a marketing agency-and apparently that is their opinion; there is no reason to doubt it-is it the C.C.F. attitude that this should be done regardless? On this question of getting help to the farmers in this time of emergency, do they say that we should risk doing away with the long-term plan of keeping the wheat board? I just wonder whether my hon. friends really take that attitude? That is what I wish to say about that meeting at Saskatoon. In my opinion the government did the only thing it could do, consistent with the advice brought from that conference. Anybody who reads the resolutions passed by that conference, or who attended the conference, knows that what I am saying is true.
I intend to come back to this question of grain marketing, but there are one or two things I wish to say before I do that. We are being invited to vote lack of confidence in this government.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: And the C.C.F. endorse that. If that motion of lack of confidence carried it would mean a new election. Does anybody in the C.C.F. really pretend that if an election were held there is any other alternative to the present government than a Progressive Conservative government? Surely, they will not pretend that they would have any chance of forming a government. Are my C.C.F. friends anxious to replace the present government with a Progressive Conservative government? They do not answer. I know they would not dare to say that, because Saskatchewan would repudiate them if they did so. When they ask us to vote against the government they are asking us to take the chance that we might have a Progressive Conservative government instead of a Liberal government. Since I know western Canada does not want that, why should I vote lack

The Address-Mr. Tucker of confidence in the present government? I ask them, why should they do it?
Where would our provincial government be without	the	money	it gets	under	the
dominion-provincial agreements?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter Adam Tucker: The C.C.F. may say "oh". They know themselves that we could not carry out our educational program; we could not carry on our hospitalization program without	the	money	we get	under	the
dominion-provincial agreements. Have they any guarantee that if this government were defeated and succeeded by another government, we would have dominion-provincial agreements under which we would get the money which we get today, to the same extent and under the same circumstances? They could not guarantee it; and yet they are ready to take that chance. I myself know the attitude of some of the members of the government of Saskatchewan. They would hate to take the chance of having this government defeated when they are faced with that kind of possibility. They know that is true.
Let me in this connection deal with the attacks that are being made on the wheat board today. The government is being attacked because of its wheat board policy. The central point of that policy is the wheat board and the maintenance of the wheat board. If the government were defeated, as the C.C.F. want, could my C.C.F. friends tell their friends in Saskatchewan that they would guarantee the wheat board would be 'maintained as the exclusive marketing agency of wheat, oats and barley, as it is today They cannot do it. They could not guarantee it. They are ready to take a chance on this very thing that is so important. They are doing it for what purpose? They are doing it for political advantage, Mr. Speaker, that is all.
They say they want to see the Liberals stand up and be counted. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to stand up and be counted in support of a government that maintains the wheat board as the marketing agency for our grain. Certainly, I am ready to stand up and be counted and support the government that is bringing in improved dominion-provincial agreements under which our province can give a standard of education and of health that it could not give without them.
I was elected to this house in 1935. At that time one of the problems in Saskatchewan was that we had no access to the large incomes of the corporations and of individuals in the central provinces, and that we could not, without impossible taxation, give the


An hon. Member:: What about wheat?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not afraid to deal with wheat. The people who should be afraid to deal with wheat are those who profess to be in favour of the wheat board and yet are always advocating policies which will destroy it.
I wish to say a word in regard to external affairs. I commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for the attitude he has taken at NATO to the effect that the attention of the western world should be directed to building up economic strength and economic co-operation. We cannot hope to build up solid military strength unless we have economic strength.
Surely, we do not want to repeat the mistake we made in the thirties when each country tried to solve its unemployment problem, its problem of low farm prices by taking individual action. In this way each nation hurt the other nation. The result was the terrible experiences we had in the thirties. At that time, we resolved that never again would we
The Address-Mr. Tucker be a party to doing that sort of thing. I want to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs for pointing out, particularly to our good neighbour the United States, that article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty is an integral and important part of that agreement; that therefore, they should take no steps that are unfair to the other members of that organization hoping as they do to live up to the terms of that agreement. I believe that, in emphasizing that, our minister was doing a good thing, not only for Canada but for the whole of the western world. Why then suggest that we embark on a different scheme on a national basis and follow the past United States system of subsidy and giveaway, regardless of the extent to which it may destroy the economic foundation of neighbouring countries? When it is suggested to us we do the same, is it not being suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we repeat the mistakes of the thirties?
I want to commend the government for taking the lead at GATT and saying that we should adopt trade policies leading to a greater measure of trade. I want to commend the government also for taking the lead at the NATO conference in saying that, if we are going to solve these problems which are besetting agriculture in all countries of the western world, we must work together in harmony. Things should not be done because one nation is strong and thereby able to take a position that may almost ruin a neighbouring nation. Surely our Secretary of State for External Affairs deserves the united support of every member of this house in that connection. Yet my friends of the opposition say I should vote against the government. I am not afraid to vote in favour of not repeating the mistakes of the thirties, and I do not think my hon. friends opposite should ask me to do otherwise.
I should say a word of commendation about the good work done by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) at the United Nations. One of the things that hampered the work of the United Nations was its lack of universality. Our representatives there succeeded in getting 16 of the nations of the world admitted to membership, thereby strengthening the organization and making a contribution to peace. By giving that leadership our representative added lustre to the name of Canada in the councils of the world.
Now, I would like to say a word about farm prices. I have looked over the index figures, but I have not time to give them now. I would point out that if you allow for a hoped for further payment on wheat, the index of farm prices is back around 228-8 based on
200	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tucker 1935-39. His costs stand at 228-9. In other words the prices received by the farmer and the cost of doing business are both more than twice as much as in 1935-39. This figure of 228-9 is the index of farm prices. It allows for 20 cents more per bushel on wheat which brings the index of farm prices to 228-8, which is one-tenth of 1 per cent away from the index of farm costs. In other words, if you calculate that we will get another 20 cents on wheat the farmer is now back-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Where do you get that figure?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am hoping for it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Where do you get it?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am hoping for it. If we do not get it, the situation will not be so good. I am hoping we will get a further payment on oats and a further payment on barley but I have not taken this into my calculations. In any event, we have got back to the position where what the farmer now gets from what he sells, relatively to what it costs, is relatively the same as in the period 1935-39.
In the interval, his position has been much better. His position has been getting worse during the last four or five years. His costs have been going up and the prices at which he sells his goods have been going down. This situation has been reflected in the trend of the population and it is something to which I am sure the government is giving attention. The figures I got were from the Canada Year Book and they seem to me significant figures-figures to which every member should give some attention. I have only the figures for 1941 and 1951. In 1941 the number of people engaged in agriculture totalled 1,083,816. By 1951 the number had decreased to 826,759, that is a decrease of roughly
257,000	or 23-7 per cent. The number has decreased by almost one-quarter. I think that trend has gone on since 1951.
On the other hand, in the case of those engaged in all forms of gainful occupation, including agriculture, the number in Canada in 1941 was 4,195,000 in round numbers, whereas in 1951, and this does not include Newfoundland, the number had increased to
5,179,000,	or an increase of 24-4 per cent. Therefore, while the number of people engaged in gainful occupations went up by 24-4 per cent in the decade from 1941 to 1951, the number of people engaged in agriculture went down by 23-7 per cent.
It is quite obvious that it has been felt by the people of Canada that it is much better to be engaged in some occupation other than farming. So far as I understand their attitude,


the royal commission on agriculture in Saskatchewan, noting that the number of people in Saskatchewan in agriculture had gone down, that the number of farms had decreased, that farms have increased in size, believed that no fault should be found with that because the only way in which a farmer now can make a living is by doing business on a bigger scale. Therefore you have to have larger farms for the farmer to have an adequate income, and as I take it they do not find fault with that trend.
But the government must bear in mind that sociological changes like that bear down very heavily on the sections of the community affected and the government must always keep in mind that these changes should not be permitted to happen faster than considerations of humanity warrant, or faster than would be in the best interests of the basic economy of the country. This is something to which careful attention must be given and it is one of the reasons why I feel that the rest of Canada should have no hesitation in supporting any modest measure of temporary assistance to the farming industry that may be necessary to temper this situation until we can find out exactly what the long-term position should be.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why modest?


Walter Adam Tucker: I think I should now say a few further words in regard to the wheat situation. I think at the outset that I should say that I commend the stand taken on this matter by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) down through the last four or five difficult years. The attitude has been taken over and over again by opposition groups that we were losing our markets, that we were faced with a pile-up of grain, that we needed to get rid of our grain, that we had to do something about it, that this grain surplus was striking at the very foundation of our economy in western Canada.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion if there had been any indication on the part of the minister responsible for our program, if there had been any weakening in support of the wheat board, if there had been any indication that this vast quantity of grain would suddenly be thrown on the markets of the world: if there had been any thought that that was likely to happen, it would have broken the world price of wheat. What that would have cost the farmers of this country is incalculable.
Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce is attacked for his firm stand on this question, for his being behind the wheat board, for his saying that there will be no fire sale of

wheat-that the situation is not as bad as it has been painted by the opposition. I think on reflection we must all admit that he has done a good service to the farmers of this country and for that reason he deserves support when the time comes to vote.
One thing that was significant to me in the speech yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was that up until, I believe he said early in November, there had been no great demand for our wheat and then suddenly it came on faster than he had ever experienced before. At a time when there is an open market, speeches such as those that have been made would not have much effect because people dealing in wheat would know the exact supply situation. They would not go according to speeches.
But when there is a tremendous amount of wheat in the hands of a government and that government is being attacked by the opposition because there is a great deal- too much-wheat on hand; when it is being contended that a new policy should be followed, that a more aggressive sales policy should be adopted, that something should be done to get rid of it, those people who are thinking of buying wheat may be inclined to believe that the government may finally give in, and should that occur the price of wheat might drop substantially and therefore they hold back to see what effect the opposition attack may have.
I think it is fair to say that this continual outcry on the part of the opposition that there should be some change in the marketing of wheat, that the wheat board is not getting rid of the wheat fast enough, that the government should be thrown out because it is not doing a good selling job- when these things occur other people may think that the opposition may be able to bring down the government and they may decide to hold back to see what happens. How much damage has been done by these cries which have been heard in the past, that the government should get rid of our wheat, nobody can tell, but I do point out that to me it seems to be a case of playing politics at the expense of the farmers of our country.
The minister has pointed out that he feels from his long experience that we are going to get through this situation without changing our policy, without creating panic and without throwing our wheat on the world market and breaking the price. Because he takes that optimistic position he is attacked. He takes the attitude that it is a good thing that we have a surplus because we may have a crop failure when we would need that 67509-14
The Address-Mr. Nickle surplus to meet the demands of our customers. This is in the best tradition of former great leaders in western Canada.
Western Canada likes the straightforward attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce because he talks to them in a blunt, straightforward way. Yet we continue to have this outcry that there should be a change in his attitude. As an example, last night I read where a Conservative member of the provincial legislative of Manitoba had said that a new wheat policy was needed. He said that the problem of farm security could be met by paying on farm-stored grain. His solution for the disposal of our surplus was practically a forced sale, make prices and conditions suitable to the consumers in the importing countries.
Would it not be a sad thing if when, through the goodness of Providence, we had a good crop, as a result of weakness on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in doing the things suggested by this Progressive Conservative member of the legislature of Manitoba our wheat was pressed on the markets of the world so as to break prices. The result would be that our farmers would lose-and the country would lose -through that goodness of Providence rather than being benefited. Surely we should be glad that we have a minister who says that we are going to take advantage of the goodness of Providence by seeing to it that the farmer benefits. That is the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I intend to support it-to stand up without hesitation and be counted, believing 1 am thereby supporting the best interests of the farmers of our country.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin in the usual way by extending my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I should like to follow that with a note of personal congratulations and best wishes to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on reaching his seventieth birthday. I might say that he followed up this milestone in his life by making a most spirited address to this house yesterday. Although there may be some differences of opinion as to the accuracy of some of the comments he made
202	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nickle at that time, he certainly showed a great deal of spirit for a man who has, throughout his career, done a great deal for our country.
I should like now to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who spoke just prior to myself. He should be congratulated because, during the course of his address, he gave the province of Saskatchewan an export of a new kind. The export which he introduced to this house was red herrings, the same brand of red herrings that was introduced into the house yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a new export from Port Arthur.
The principal red herring injected into these debates was the red herring that those who are critical of the government's handling of the present agricultural emergency are people who are attempting to throw out the Canadian wheat board. I do not think that any member of this house, or perhaps even newspapers or others that have been mentioned by these two gentlemen, are seeking deliberately to destroy a means of orderly marketing. However, in supporting generally the principle of the Canadian wheat board, I do not think anyone in his right mind, farmer or otherwise, could fairly assume that the support of a principle of orderly marketing necessarily means support of all the actions of those who may be carrying out that policy of orderly marketing.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his statement, went to great lengths to establish that, in his view, production of surpluses of agricultural products was in the long run a good thing for our economy. He tried to imply that others who may not think as he does want to see shortages rather than surpluses. That is most unfair and most untrue. When we take the minister's reasoning that it is in the national interest to continue producing surpluses of all kinds of products, particularly of wheat, despite any temporary state surpluses, then it must necessarily follow that, if maximum production is in the national interest, then it is also in the national interest that the burden imposed by this method of production should be carried on a national basis in the national interest and should not be a burden imposed upon the producers of agricultural products alone.
If it be true that it is in the national interest to maintain a high level of production regardless of the state of our overseas markets for these products, then it must follow, and even the most ardent supporters of this government's policy must agree, that the present very limited emergency steps contemplated in the speech from the throne 

are steps which still impose on the prairie farmer the great burden in the national interest of carrying something which is a responsibility of the nation as a whole.
The minister made some reference to retail sales in the prairie provinces for the first nine months of 1955. He compared them with the first nine months of 1954 and from that comparison came to the conclusion that the western farmer has no need of cash. He stated in his comparison that retail sales were up, I believe, some four per cent in Manitoba, that retail sales were down only one per cent in Saskatchewan and were up some six per cent in Alberta. But let me point out that this particular gauge is a most unreliable one and presents a very false picture of the actual state of affairs. A far more reliable gauge of the actual cash position of the agricultural producer in the west would be one based upon how much farmer debt has increased during this period of 1955, when retail sales were maintained. How much more do the western farmers now owe their local merchants? How much do they owe their suppliers of all forms of products? How much, in turn, has the debt of those merchants and suppliers increased as compared with those in the east and other parts of Canada from whom they buy their products for resale to the western farmers? It is only fair and honest to say that the farm debt position has very greatly worsened during 1955. Such is the need for cash that a great many western merchants in smaller towns and cities alike have had to go on a straight cash basis with the farmer. The farmer's credit is no longer good, simply because the merchant himself finds he cannot maintain his own credit position and continue getting goods if he has nothing to show for the sale of his products except a debt owing by a farmer without cash.
I know we have in southern Alberta a very sad situation which accentuates the belief that there is a crying need for more cash for the farmer. That is the fact that many farmers are disposing of No. 1 and No. 2 wheat for feed. Good grade wheat is being taken by merchants of all kinds in exchange for petroleum products, household appliances, motor cars, foodstuffs and so on. It is being taken in for as low as 50 cents a bushel for No. 1 wheat. That wheat, in turn, is being sold at merchant's cost, or even less, for feed. This is at a time when our elevators are loaded with huge quantities of low grade wheat which at this stage should properly be used to supply the feed needs of the west as well as the east.
I am not going to offer any specific solution for the farm problems of the west. The

leader of my party has outlined what I believe is a good emergency program at this time-cash advances to farmers-and a good suggestion for a long-term solution, that is, to toss this problem to the Gordon commission for a full study of all the aspects of future policy on wheat marketing in order that we may evolve a plan that will ensure not only maximum production of agricultural products but a fairly steady flow of cash for those products, in order that those who produce them may continue to live on a standard comparable to the rest of Canada.
I should like to devote the rest of my time today to a discussion of another phase of the western Canadian economy, one which, at least in one regard, has shown a great deal more progress than has our basic industry, agriculture. I refer of course to petroleum and natural gas. During 1955 the petroleum and gas industry poured into western Canada as direct investment more than half a billion dollars, to be exact some $503 million in new capital investment in oil and gas exploration and development, land acquisition, pipe lines, refineries and everything else that goes to make up that particular industry. This investment of more than half a billion dollars in one year is by far the largest rate of investment in Canada's history in any single natural resource. It of course reflects the steady growth that has taken place since 1947 v/hen the Leduc discovery started off the oil boom.
This year western Canada, the four western provinces and the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, are now assured of a still greater investment. There will be poured into the west this year by the oil and gas industry a minimum of $680 million, a rate, I might say, which dwarfs by many times the investment rate of the industry of only $12 million a year nine years ago. But if the critical problem of the oil and gas industry, that is, the solution of the gas export question, is settled, new investment in the four western provinces in 1956 will not be $680 million but Will climb to a minimum of 813 millions of new dollars.
The effect of that kind of capital investment upon a part of Canada whose basic industry has suffered and suffered severely is an effect which is incalculable, I might say, and this is a good measure of the importance of these resources to western Canada as well as to all of Canada, that nine years ago this industry supported directly and indirectly some 25,000 men, women and children in western Canada. Today the number of western Canadians supported directly or indirectly by the oil and gas industry is not
25,000	but exceeds 300,000 people.
The Address-Mr. Nickle
There is every reason to believe that over the next few years, provided the industry can continue to grow through freedom to market its products, provided we can develop along with oil and gas production ancillary and associated industries, petrochemical, steel and so forth, to supply oil needs, we will in a relatively few years have at least one million western Canadians supported by these twin resources.
I am going to toss a very few more figures on oil at you, Mr. Speaker, and then get down to the question of our problem with respect to gas. In 1955 this industry, which is pouring so much in capital investment into western Canada, took out far less, but it still took out some $301 million worth of crude oil which it marketed, of course, in Canada and the United States. This year we have a substantial market growth ahead of us for oil. This year we will be marketing 156 million barrels of oil with a worth at well-head of something over $376 million, making oil, of course, by a substantial measure the No. 1 mineral producing industry in terms of cash produced in all of Canada.
In 1955 this western industry managed to produce some 353,000 barrels of oil daily, an amount which represented 57J per cent of the petroleum needs of the Dominion of Canada. That record was set only eight years after the discovery of Leduc at a time when our oil hunger in Canada was less than half what it is today and when we were only able to produce less than 10 per cent of our needs. This year we will produce in western Canada some 429,000 barrels of oil per day equal to 65 per cent of this year's demand for the whole of Canada.
I might say, however, that these figures, while large, must be stacked up alongside one factor, and that is that our ability to produce oil in western Canada is growing even faster than our ability to market it. Right now in the four western provinces we can produce no less than 700,000 barrels of oil per day compared with 20,000 barrels a day nine years ago, if we have the markets to absorb it. The figure of 700,000 barrels daily is made up of the maximum efficient rates of production of all the thousands of oil wells in the west as determined by competent engineers employed by governments and oil companies.
We are, therefore, not producing to our full ability. We are producing some 55 or 60 per cent of the amount of oil we could produce if we had markets. But a breakdown of where we are selling oil and how those markets for oil have grown sets a pattern we might well bear in mind when we consider oil's twin product, gas. In 1954 we first
67509-14J
204	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nickle broke into the United States oil market and in that year we managed to dispose of 7,900 barrels of oil per day, all of that going into the area along the western end of lake Superior on the United States side. In 1955 these exports of our oil to the United States increased severalfold. They increased to 50,800 barrels daily, and in this year we will be able to market in the United States at least
112.000	barrels of oil daily, an amount which represents 26 per cent of the expected oil production of western Canada. In other words, the United States market has become a very vital factor in our market planning.
The sale of oil to the United States in this year alone will bring to Canada a minimum of $113 million in United States currency which will continue to improve greatly our trade position with our neighbouring nation to the south. Without this United States market for oil and the lift that access to that market provides to support capital spending in the development of new resources in western Canada I believe quite firmly western Canada would lose capital investment of at least a quarter of a billion dollars per year.
I use these figures because they do indicate the importance to the development of these resources of the west of access to markets outside of Canada. It will perhaps interest hon. members to know, and this rather disturbs me at times when I think about it, that even a year ago we faced certain problems in Ottawa, and they were not confined to the government side of the house alone. The problem that faced us was that there were members of the house who were still attempting to place restrictions upon the route of oil pipe lines plus restrictions upon the marketing of our oil that would have, if approved, ruled out the market growth we have been able to enjoy across the border.
You may recall the stand taken some years ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he ruled that the first oil pipe line should go partly over United States territory to Sarnia, Ontario. I was not in politics at that time but I strongly supported his position because that was the most economic means of bringing the oil east. What has been the effect of that decision? It can be summed up this way, that because that oil line reached Ontario by traversing in part United States territory we were placed in contact by means of the pipe line with a United States market which in 1956 is going to take from western Canada approximately
54.000	barrels a day of western Canadian oil.
You may recall a year or so ago the protests lodged on the other side of the house against expansion southward from Vancouver of the Trans Mountain oil pipe line.
(Mr. Nickle.]

Those objections, I am happy to say, were overruled. But had they gone through, and had we been unable to move oil by pipe line south from Vancouver into the northwest United States, this is what would have been the effect this year. Western Canada would have lost a market which this year will amount to 58,500 barrels of oil per day. Those two markets in the United States which are available to us only because of the relative freedom given to the oil industry to plan its transport systems on the most economic basis without too much regard for the location of the 49th parallel today, mean that western Canada, in terms of production, is producing an extra $300,000 worth of oil per day and that the Canadian economy is being strengthened by that amount. As I indicated to you earlier, even access to that United States market does not take care of our oil surplus problem. We are still capable of producing almost twice as much oil as we are able to market in Canada and in the United States, but the oil industry are not calling for subsidies of any kind to help them out. They are simply leaving their wells cut back to the amount of oil they can produce efficiently and can market in the areas to be served.
That brings us to the question of gas. Our oil planning has been based upon a fairly wide recognition of the fact that a pipe line is merely a means of transport between an oil field or a gas field and a market. Unless that pipe line can move that product to a market at a price which the customer is willing to pay and at which the producer is willing to sell, the pipe line cannot be a success financially and cannot do the job for which it was intended in moving the products from the field to the market. With regard to gas, unfortunately, our thinking in this country on both sides of the house to a large degree has been based upon the acceptance of a purely emotional appeal without one whit of regard for the cold economic facts of mounting surpluses of gas in western Canada and the cold economics involved in*the setting up of a transport system or the economics of producing gas, transporting it and getting it to a market at a price which the customer is willing to pay. As a result of this emotionalism with regard to gas, we have now had in Canada seven long years of growing surpluses of gas in the west and continued indecision in the east. During those seven years we have seen oil pipe lines and the oil industry expand tremendously but in Canada gas has remained the one single resource of our country which has been so badly mishandled by politics that that resource still remains shut in. It is a resource whose present worth, having regard

to proved reserves today, is something over $2 billion at the well-head and is a resource which could become the basis for a great industrial future for all provinces of western Canada and a great stimulus to industrial development in eastern Canada as well. That resource is still shut in.
We have had some changes in thinking. At long last we now have approval, after about seven years, of the first gas line from western Canada across the Rocky mountains to the Pacific coast. The plan that has finally been evolved is a compromise one and it is not the most economic plan by any means. However, it is one which will at least this year finally get gas rolling. That compromise plan involves a high degree of co-operation between this country and our neighbour to the south. That co-operation is essential because Canada's west coast cannot possibly provide a market big enough to support any kind of pipe line from anywhere unless the biggest part of the pipe line through-put goes into United States markets. That is enough to be said for the system in the west. At last we shall get a pipe line built there now. I might say that had the government two or three years ago recognized the problems that are in the way, and had they recognized the solid basis for the fears entertained across the border that because of Canada's exportation act and the restrictions in that act there could be no trust on the part of United States consumers as to security of either flow or price of gas from Canada, the situation would be different. Had the government recognized those facts two or three years ago and had they brought down in 1953 or 1954 the amendments to the export act which were finally brought down in the spring of 1955, the pipe line to the west coast would today be in operation on a sounder and more economic basis, in terms of values of gas, for the governments of British Columbia and Alberta, and the producers of gas in the northern parts of those two provinces and on better terms for the consumers in British Columbia.
We now come to the pressing problem of what to do about a gas pipe line eastward. As this house knows, Mr. Speaker, several years ago-in 1952, as a matter of fact-I urged this house to accept an international arrangement which would involve United States gas flowing into eastern Canada and western Canadian gas moving across the prairies and southward into the midwestern states. That plan has now been accepted in part under the new compromise arrangement between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and Tennessee Gas Transmission Company. Part of this plan will involve a decision in this house in the next few weeks. In 1952
The Address-Mr. Nickle also-and many times since then-I tried to establish the fact that the all-Canadian pipe line, which all of us would like to see if it were feasible, was in fact a policy that could not be carried out without subsidies; that it could not stand on its own economic feet; that it was not financially feasible because banks, insurance companies and investors are not stupid enough to put their money into a proposition when they know they are going to lose. In any case, we finally reached the stage in January of last year when the allCanadian pipe line concept fell flat on its face after it applied to the Canadian government for a guarantee of its bonds in order to allow a private company to carry out not what the pipe line company wanted to do but what the government said it had to do, namely to build an all-Canadian line before it could sell any gas in the United States market which was needed to help support the line. You know what happened to the bond guarantee. It was turned down. Incidentally, I was most happy to see it turned down. But that occurrence opened up a new problem. What could be an alternative? One would be to defer the all-Canadian line-in other words a line through a thousand miles of northern Ontario -until such time as eastern Canada's markets had been built up sufficiently to support such a project and in the meantime to allow western Canada gas to move into nearby United States markets and build up eastern Canadian markets with gas through existing pipe lines reaching from the southern United States. As I mentioned earlier, that plan has been accepted but the government, supported by the Ontario government, has ruled that, along with those two features of export to the United States from western Canada and import to eastern Canada from the United States, must come at the same time-before it is economically feasible or privately financially feasible-the northern Ontario line. That brings us up against the cold fact that there is a price tag on nationalism.
If we want this northern Ontario gas line now instead of when the north or eastern Canada can support it, then somebody must pay for it, and that is the proposition which the government of Ontario and the government of Canada have now brought forward. They plan to build this northern Ontario line as a joint government enterprise and to lease it to a private company, namely, Trans-Canada, who would carry out the more economic phase of the over-all plan.
There are some here and elsewhere who would like still to maintain their previous position of an all-Canadian project and get themselves off the hook by making this whole pipe line project from Alberta to Quebec a socialized project. I will comment a little

The Address-Mr. Nickle further on that in a moment. But the present proposal of Tennessee Transmission and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, coupled with the government part of the northern Ontario line, is one that can go ahead this spring only if the federal power commission of the United States will approve the import of Canadian gas into the midwest and the export of United States gas to Ontario and Quebec. Of course, most hon. members know that hearings before the federal power commission at Washington are due to start later this month. Quite frankly, the odds are against the early approval of that proposition by the federal power commission. The chances of approval were a great deal better a year ago; they were far better two or three years ago than they are now.
One of the prices that we have to pay for our indecision and our dilly-dallying around with this problem for several years in the building up of a set of circumstances, resentments and other things in the United States, which are prejudicing our chances now of quickly cracking the ice to get the markets which were ours for the asking not too long ago.
The great opposition to the importation of gas to the midwest stems from a group of United States pipe line companies who are already marketing United States gas in the area into which Tennessee Transmission would contemplate exporting Canadian gas. That opposition is led by Northern Natural Gas Company which supplies Minneapolis and other parts of the midwest. Northern, as many hon. members know, is a company which for a number of years has been a prime supporter of importing gas from Canada, and until the collapse of Trans-Canada's original project a year ago, Northern were intending to be the distributor, through their existing system, of Canadian gas in the United States midwest. They have now been frozen out. They are the company which had hopes of getting Canadian gas. They made a great deal of effort to get Canadian gas. They now dislike seeing somebody else bring the same product in to compete in their markets.
Some other utility companies farther south than Minneapolis take the attitude that at this stage they do not want to see a fresh ;ompetitor supplying the same product into areas in which they are now bringing United States gas, and in which they have a very leavy financial investment. I would suggest ;hat that poses another problem. At least, it brings up another possible solution to the ix in which we are now.
May I summarize? We have ahead of us n this parliament some important crises that

will have to be solved if we are to resolve this very serious gas problem in the future. We can accept the present compromise plan which this government has worked out in co-operation with the Ontario government, Trans-Canada and Tennessee Transmission; but the odds are against approval of that over-all plan in its present form by the United States federal power commission in time to start any construction in 1956.
In lieu of the present plan, we can urge on the government that the present plan be modified in the United States section by bringing in as participants with Tennessee Transmission in the line of connection at Emerson, Manitoba, where the Canadian gas would move south to the United States, the existing gas utility companies of the United States midwest. If we did that, we would perhaps eliminate their objections before the federal power commission. In other words, their position might then be not one of opposing a new competitor but rather of supporting a new supplementary supplier of gas from Canada, in which they themselves had a financial stake. It is a suggestion that carries a lot of merit. It is the only hope I see of getting any pipe line east from Manitoba started in 1956.
Then, we come to a third general proposition, and that would be to defer construction of the northern Ontario section of the line, that is, the government section, and redesign the United States territory links of this east-west pipe-line system. In other words, build a line from Alberta to Ontario, following roughly along the line of the route of the existing oil pipe line between Alberta and Ontario, which incidentally, is the lowest economic route and would not cross the areas in the United States now being served by existing United States pipe lines. It would reach into a part of the United States which does not now have natural gas, but is anxious to have it, and could absorb many times the amount of gas that could be marketed at this time in northern Ontario.
If that were done, then the northern Ontario line would be built a few years hence, at the time of the looping stage of the pipe line system. As hon. members know, the capacity of a line is limited by the size of the original pipe line. A 30-inch diameter pipe is now planned for northern Ontario. In a few years that line would have to be paralleled by another large-diameter pipe line to meet the growing market needs. But that parallel line or loop would not necessarily have to be laid along the same section of territory. It could go north of lake Superior, and at that time step into the eastern Canadian market built up in advance

for it, and could be supported without government help, as is the case with the present uneconomic pipe line in northern Ontario.
I might say that if we redesigned the United States section of the line there would still be no hope of getting any line built in 1956.
The fourth proposal which is made by some people is that we socialize this whole project, socialize Trans-Canada and build this whole system as a government operation from Alberta to Quebec. There are some who think that is an easy way out, and there are others who believe as a matter of faith that government ownership of projects such as these are in the best interests of the country. I want to say only one thing, namely, that an over-all government-owned pipe line would impose upon Canada a whole new set of problems. Gas is simply one of several fuels. To socialize the pipe line would bring Canada face to face with the problem of how to satisfy the coal miner, how to satisfy the coal operator, how to satisfy the railway worker who is transporting coal or fuel oil, how to satisfy the fuel oil dealer in Canada and those who are distributing or are in any way concerned with the production, transportation or marketing of these competing fuels.
If we socialize one fuel, we may be forced through necessity to socialize them all. In lieu of socializing the others we may be forced by necessity into setting up a new system to subsidize the low, free enterprise fuels to compete with the socialized ones. That is one of the problems we shall be faced with in Canada if we socialize the gas line.
The other problem is a very real one. If we socialized the gas line in Canada we would find ourselves face to face with a very strong new opponent to the import of Canadian gas into the United States. This new opponent would be the United States coal industry who, as a matter of course, opposes all gas and oil pipe lines in the United States, whether they are entirely domestic or international. If we gave the United States coal industry new arguments, if we gave the free enterprise United States coal industry, the free enterprise United States railway system, the free enterprise United States oil industry who are now being asked to compete in their home market with socialized fuel from another country, new arguments, I am very much afraid it would take years to break through the barrier of that United States border in order to get outlets we desperately need for surplus western Canadian fuel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cumberland.
The Address-Mr. Lusby


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks it is, of course, too late to be original in this, but I should like to add my very sincere congratulations to those which have already been tendered in the course of this debate, to the mover and seconder in respect to the resolution on the reply to the speech from the throne, on the very excellent manner in which they discharged their duties. I particularly wish to congratulate the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mrs. Shipley) upon the fact that of all of her sex she has been the first to have the honour of moving such a resolution in this chamber. I know that her enthusiasm for her task must have been greatly heightened by the fact that this year the speech from the throne indicated the imminent passage of legislation to provide that women shall receive equal pay with men for equal work in matters coming within the federal jurisdiction. Such legislation constitutes, I think, a very significant advance in the long march towards complete recognition of women's rights. I think also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is to be congratulated, not only on the fact that this legislation is to be passed, but also upon the fact that it has first been given searching and careful scrutiny. It is true the principle involved seems to be simple and straightforward but I can readily see there may be many difficulties in the interpretation and application of the act when it is passed. After all, there are women concerned in this matter.
The speech from the throne confirms our knowledge that this year has been a prosperous one for Canada, and that those prophecies of depression and ruin which only a year ago echoed so freely and loudly from the opposition benches in this chamber have proved groundless. That is not to say that one can overlook the serious difficulties confronting the farming industry. It has always been my belief that prosperity in that industry is a necessary component of any stable and enduring national prosperity in this country. Therefore it is imperative that a solution be found for the difficulties which are now facing the farming population. However, this government during its tenure of office has acquired the habit of dealing effectively with all national problems which arise, and I am confident that it will take every feasible and desirable step within its power to deal successfully with this problem also, and not only the vexing problem of agricultural surpluses, but also the allied one of undue disparity between agricultural prices and cost of production.
Apropos of the western wheat problem, I might say, Mr. Speaker, this matter is being dealt with very ably by speakers from the
208	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lusby government benches, and I do not feel called upon to speak about it myself. However, in passing, I noticed the other day that when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking in this debate he suggested that certain low grade western wheat should be sold as feed grain in Ontario, Quebec and abroad. Those are his words as I got them from Hansard.
I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that there are many farmers in the maritimes who are also substantial users of feed grains, and who have benefited greatly by the policy adopted by this government of granting freight assistance for the movement of western feed grains to eastern Canada, which includes the maritimes. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in any scheme to dispose of this low grade western wheat, the maritimes should be considered. I do not think any movement of that wheat eastward should stop in Ontario or Quebec.
In the field of external affairs the need, stressed in the speech from the throne, to maintain a strong North Atlantic Treaty Organization as part of an effective defence system cannot be too strongly urged, and it is my hope that while the military aspects of NATO are developed its economic aspects and implications will not be neglected. Among the organization's aims is the co-operative fostering and strengthening of the economic life of its member states, and today, with the effective waging of war so largely based upon industrial strength, a strong economy is as essential to any nation for defence as a large army or modern air force. Effective defence is closely geared to the economic strength of a nation. Moreover, an impoverished economy in any nation is a direct invitation to communism.
I should also like to commend the government upon its decision to give continued support to the United Nations. And in this connection I wish particularly to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) upon the important role he played in obtaining the recent admission of additional nations to UN membership. To my mind, one of the marked weaknesses of the United Nations has lain in the fact that, with so many qualified states denied admission, it was not truly a representative world organization. The recent increase in its membership has done much to alleviate this situation, and should add greatly to the stature of the organization as a working instrument for the preservation of world peace. The minister can take justifiable pride in the fact that the Canadian delegation, under his guidance, led the way in bringing about this favourable result.


In this debate, Mr. Speaker, the contributions of most members are in part at least a sort of "state of the constituency" message, and I naturally wish to observe the custom by placing before this house some of the needs and aspirations of my own constituency.
In my constituency of Cumberland, Mr. Speaker, the year has been generally a good one, although our farmers have been confronted by difficulties, as have farmers elsewhere. Lumbering and industrial activity has continued at satisfactory levels. The coal mining industry, which, of all our industries, is to me the cause of most concern, has held its own, with the prospect that it can continue to do so, although the seasonal lack of orders during the warm weather months remains a problem for the smaller, independent mine operators.
Here let me say, Mr. Speaker, that while the long-range prospects for our Nova Scotia coal industry encourage no undue optimism, the fact that there has been some improvement during the year indicates the importance to the industry of a high level of industrial activity in Canada generally. Given that, our coal industry may face the future with greater confidence. For example, in my own town of Amherst, which is an industrial town, the high level of industrial activity which I may say has been aided substantially by orders and contracts from this government, has been of very material benefit to the Cumberland coal mining industry.
In this connection also, I should like to suggest to this government that the development of our Canadian steel industry, that great user of coal, particularly in eastern Canada, would be of incalculable benefit to our coal industry and I believe could prove its ultimate salvation. It would certainly remove to a large extent the cloud of uncertainty which still hangs over the future of the industry. Of course, the freight subventions paid by this government, including those of the past year, which were successfully designed to aid Nova Scotia coal in finding a sales outlet in Great Britain and continental Europe, have remained a chief prop of the industry.
I should like to suggest that this government co-operate in every possible way with the provincial governments concerned in an effort to implement the recommendations contained in the Christie report, which envisages the widespread production and distribution of electrical power throughout the maritimes produced by a system of coal-burning steam plants. In my opinion, in the production of electrical power by the use of coal-fired steam plants lies the true future of maritime electrical development, far more than in any hydro development that could be contemplated.

I have said that in my constituency this year has generally been a good one, but in Nova Scotia and in fact throughout the mari-times we need something more than an assurance of a good year. I think more than any other part of Canada we need the assurance of a good future, a stable and prosperous future. Today it borders on the trite to say that, economically and otherwise, Canada has a brilliant and prosperous future. For the country as a whole and for the more fortunate provinces that is entirely true, but if that future is to be brilliant and propitious in every respect, then we must be able to apply that saying with equal aptness to every province of this dominion.
While I do not suggest at the present time that we in the maritimes are facing the future with any pessimism, because we certainly are not, yet we are well aware that, regrettably, and so far inescapably, we are more vulnerable to any adverse economic winds that may begin to blow than any other part of Canada.
It has been said by the Prime Minister that there is a growing spirit of Canadian unity. Again, that is perfectly true, but if that spirit is to reach full fruition efforts must be put forth to ensure that every province of this federated country shall share in an equitable degree in the prosperity and development of the country as a whole. There is nothing more conducive to a spirit of disunity, or at least a spirit of apartness, than the existence of a pronounced gap between the prosperity and economic level of certain provinces and the prosperity and economic level of other provinces. While substantial gains have been made in the less favoured provinces in raising their economic levels, the gap does remain substantial. I think that every effort should be made to see that every province shall enjoy fully an adequate economic level as compared with any other province.
What should be the role of the federal government in this regard? In spite of the somewhat chilling influence of the British North America Act, the concept of the federal government as a significant factor in the economic life of this country has broadened vastly since the days of confederation. Always, of course, the federal government has been accustomed to act within its own jurisdictional fields, as defined by that act, not only to protect the interests of Canada as a whole, but to undertake, wherever real need may exist, such useful projects as fall within those fields, even though primarily calculated to create benefits of merely provincial or at most regional scope. I refer to such things as harbour improvements in Halifax or the building of a canal in Ontario. Nor has this
The Address-Mr. Lusby restriction of the benefits in such cases to provincial or regional scope been in itself deemed a valid objection to federal action within federal fields of jurisdiction.
In more recent times, however, we have seen a far-reaching extension of federal activity, sometimes with provincial participation, sometimes without, sometimes with the sanction of a constitutional amendment, sometimes without, into fields where the venerable fathers of confederation, even if they could have envisaged the subjects at all, would never have expected the federal government to poke its nose. There are many instances of this, such as unemployment insurance and assistance, old age assistance, blind and disability pensions, indeed the whole realm of social security. In addition there are such things as the trans-Canada highway, disaster relief and public health. In my opinion these are all prime examples of that slow extension of federal activity into broader and broader fields of national life. In each case, of course, federal participation has been explained by the fact that it is deemed to be a matter of national interest or concern and that to deal with the subject adequately is beyond the available provincial resources.
In my opinion, the over-all effect of these extensions of federal activity and the resulting greater impingement of that activity upon the economy of the country has been to lessen the gap which exists between the economic levels of the less fortunate provinces and those of the more fortunate and therefore to foster in no small degree that spirit of national unity which, as the Prime Minister has said, is indeed growing and steadily knitting this country into a true national entity, however diverse its components.
But the gap, the disparity between the economic levels of the two classes of province, still remains substantial, far too much so. I submit that the federal government should undertake, not tentatively, not sporadically, but as a matter of settled and continuing national policy, the narrowing of that gap, the lessening of that disparity, by every feasible means at its command. Thereby can be achieved a signal contribution to the cause of Canadian unity and true future greatness.
Let me suggest one way in which this government may within its own established constitutional sphere advance such a policy. I think it is generally agreed that the vast concentration of industry in certain restricted areas of the country is to be deprecated. I do not think that anyone would wish to have all industry concentrated in two or three or four small areas of a country. Of course, no one will question the right of the industrialist to locate his plant wherever he considers it most

The Address-Mr. Lusby advantageous to do so, but it seems to me that a proper system of allocation of government contracts and orders could be used so that those regions which are most in need of industrial building up would be encouraged. If that were done, not only would those regions, -and of course the maritimes are one of them, -which require greater industrial activity be encouraged to build up their industrial economies; it would also to some degree tend to halt or at least slow down the existing concentration of industry in areas already overdeveloped.
When I say that the government should adopt as a national policy the task of lessening the economic gap between different provinces, it seems to me that this may, and probably would, involve further advances by the federal government into spheres of activity that hitherto have perhaps been considered purely provincial preserves: a greater degree of federal participation and assistance in projects which, in the past at least, would have been considered of only provincial concern. Undoubtedly here constitutional problems cannot be ignored, and, of course, there are many provincial rights and privileges which must be jealously guarded. I am certainly not one to advocate the destruction of any essential provincial rights. Nonetheless, I do submit that the British North America Act, which is the foundation stone of our constitution, never was intended to be in the nature of a strait-jacket against legitimate Canadian development, certainly not a rack upon which the economy of any one province should be warped.
The Prime Minister has very properly said that this government must be most careful in expending in any one province moneys raised from the Canadian taxpayers as a body. Certainly such caution is required; nor do I advocate any wholesale federal participation in purely provincial projects. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) this morning propounded a list of questions to which he said the Prime Minister had answered no. There is one question to which the Prime Minister and this government have always said no, and that is to the question, "Will you countenance any wasteful or inexpedient expenditure of public moneys?"
I hope they will continue at all times to say no to that question. Nonetheless, if in any of the less favoured provinces there is some useful project which would have the effect of substantially promoting the economic life

of that province, and if the financial resources of that province are not adequate to carry the load, I submit that then federal participation in such a project should be deemed legitimate and proper and that, above all, the question of such participation should be faced boldly and not with any undue constitutional qualms. As for the Canadian taxpayers, a wise and sound application of such a policy would in the end prove for them the old story of bread upon the waters.
Turning again to my own province and constituency, I note that there is no mention in the speech from the throne of any specific federal or joint federal-provincial undertaking in Nova Scotia. That is hardly surprising in view of the fact that a number of such projects have only recently been completed, ranging from the Canso causeway to the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry service. Yet I hope that in the not far distant future some speech from the throne will foreshadow the appointment of a royal commission to inquire with the utmost detail into the feasibility, the cost and the economic benefits to be legitimately expected from the construction of a canal across the isthmus of Chignecto.
This matter has been broached in the past and was broached earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy). I myself have spoken about it on numerous occasions and, like him, I shall continue to do so. I have never been one of those who take the view that we should build the canal first and then discuss the probable economic benefits afterwards. In common with most of those who have given some attention and study to the project, I am reasonably confident that a thorough investigation into the matter by a royal commission would give a favourable answer to the question whether the economic benefits to be derived by the Atlantic provinces, and indeed by Canada as a whole, would justify the expenditures which would be entailed. If that question were once favourably answered, I am confident that the construction of the Chignecto canal would not be long delayed. Certainly the people of the maritimes are entitled to have that question considered and to have it answered definitively once and for all. I therefore urge again the appointment of a royal commission to investigate the matter in its every aspect and to answer that question. I hope and believe the answer will be a favourable one.

The Chignecto canal, when constructed, will lie upon or close to the northern border of my constituency, which, as many know, is connected with the neighbouring New Brunswick constituency of Westmorland by the isthmus of Chignecto, which is of great importance in that it links the mainland of North America to Nova Scotia. If we cross my constituency to the southern side-that is, the Minas basin shore-we find there at the present time a pressing need for another transportation link: the re-establishment of a ferry service from the Cumberland county shore across Minas basin to the Kings county shore. Here a short water trip of approximately seven miles would obviate for commercial and other road traffic a trip around the head of that body of water of some 20 times the distance. Consequently, as a stimulus to commercial road traffic between the Annapolis valley and Cumberland county, eastern and northern New Brunswick, and even so far afield as Quebec and Montreal, that ferry link would be of inestimable benefit. To the tourist trade it would be a natural complement to the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry service which has been recently established. Yet, after many years of operation, that ferry service was discontinued during the last war, and it has not been resumed, in spite of the vastly greater need for it today than ever existed before.
A strong and vigorous association, the Minas basin ferry association, has now been formed to press for assistance in re-establishing this service. The cost of deep water terminals which would enable the ferry, unlike its predecessors, to operate at all stages of the tide, will undoubtedly be substantial. Although I have no doubt that the provincial government would strongly favour this project, yet it may well be that it will fail for lack of financial means unless a measure of federal aid is forthcoming. It is my earnest hope that any representations of the Minas basin ferry association to Ottawa in this connection-and I hope they will be fortified, as I expect they will be, by all available facts and figures to prove the extent of the advantages to the economy of Nova Scotia and the maritimes-will meet with a favourable reception here.
I am aware that, unlike the Chignecto canal, which is a matter entirely within the jurisdictional responsibility of the federal government, the Minas basin ferry service, since it is projected to operate only between two points in the one province, is in a somewhat different category.
The Address-Mr. Lusby
Our old friend the British North America Act expressly places ferries operating between two provinces or between Canada and another country within the federal orbit of jurisdiction, but I believe that its silence with regard to ferries operating only between points in one province has been interpreted by our courts as meaning that the latter type of ferry falls within the provincial sphere.
Yet is it not somewhat illogical, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that if the Minas basin ferry happened to operate across the headwaters of the bay of Fundy, let us say, to some point in New Brunswick, it would be a legitimate object of federal bounty, while if it operated only between two points in Nova Scotia it would not be? After all, one of the primary objects of the ferry service would be to promote trade between the Annapolis valley and points in New Brunswick, definitely interprovincial trade. As I said, it would shorten the trucking route very substantially.
Here, I think, is a striking opportunity to apply the principle I was advocating a few moments ago, that if a project will have the effect of materially strengthening the economy of one of the less favoured provinces, yet the project will fail without federal assistance because of lack of provincial financial resources, that project should be a legitimate object of federal participation. There are precedents for subsidies to ferries operating only between provincial points, and in fact prior to its discontinuance during the war this particular ferry enjoyed a modest federal subsidy, though possibly the constitutional question was skirted to some extent there by the fact it was then operated by the Dominion Atlantic Railway, which is a subsidiary of the C.P.R.
In any event, jurisdictional question or not, the matter of federal aid in the re-establishment of this ferry service is certainly one deserving of the most careful and sympathetic consideration, and I earnestly ask that it be given such consideration whenever it is brought to the attention of the government.
There were one or two other matters I wished to mention in connection with my constituency, but I think I will simply refer to one more, the matter of the program of building armouries. This of course concerns the Department of National Defence. I understand there is a need for new armouries at many points in the maritime provinces, and I am particularly concerned about the town of Springhill, which had a very fine record
212	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair during the last war, and indeed during both wars. Its sons joined the colours freely, fought bravely, and the muster roll of the dead and wounded is very great for a town of that size. The people there support militia training very strongly, yet there is only an old wooden building which serves as an armoury and is most inadequate for the purpose. True, it was fixed up. It was condemned a year or so ago and some money was spent in repairing it. I suppose the militia can carry on with it, but certainly it is not the type of accommodation they should have.
I understand there are many other places where there are perhaps no armouries at all, and that the allotment of funds under the armoury building program is such that it will be years before the program is completed.
I think we are all agreed that the problem of national defence is going to continue for years to come as one of the foremost problems of the government. We know that the Geneva spirit evaporated. Personally I never had any expectation that it would do otherwise. For the foreseeable future Canada is going to have to maintain immense armaments and be ready for any eventuality. Surely if that is the case and men are to be trained against the prospect of war they are entitled to every facility to enable them to become efficient soldiers.
Therefore I urge the Department of National Defence to enlarge and hasten the program of building armouries, for after all an armoury is a very important part of the training of the militia. I urge that the program be speeded up, and I sincerely hope that in the very near future the town of Springhill will be provided with a fully adequate armoury.
Mr. W, G. Blair (Lanark): Mr. Speaker, I first wish to add my words of congratulation to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their speeches were well delivered and well prepared.
It is an unusual fact, sir, that exactly a year ago today at about this time in the afternoon I had the pleasure of following the hon. member who has just completed his speech. There have been many subjects under consideration in this debate and many problems have been presented to the house. The problem I wish to present to hon. members today is the problem of the agriculturists, not only in my own constituency of Lanark but in the Dominion of Canada as a whole.
EMr. Lusby.l	. I

Yesterday the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) placed before the house the condition of the cheese producers in his own riding and in the province of Ontario generally. I find myself in complete agreement, because in the speech I made a year ago to which I have referred I dealt with this very same matter. I reached the same conclusions; therefore I congratulate him on the speech he has presented to the house dealing with that question.
I am also well aware that there is a problem in the Canadian west in connection with the disposal of wheat, a problem that is apparently causing hardship to the farmers. I am aware that the marketing of wheat is important to the whole economy of Canada. In dealing with the question of dairy products today may I say that I have not changed my position with regard to the importation of New Zealand cheese. I find there is a desire even in my own riding that some form of protection should be afforded the dairy farmers, and they have even asked for protection on cheese at the rate of so much per pound.
But I wish today to take up the question of butter and the surpluses existing in Canada at the present time. This is another problem of the dairy industry that we had last year. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has consistently pointed out that there is no surplus of butter, and I might say he couples with that the statement that if we sell ten or twelve million pounds there will be no surplus of butter in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: No troublesome surplus.


Mr. Blair:: Oh, "troublesome" has entered into the picture. That is a little different.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has always been in there.


William Gourlay Blair: I note that on December 23 in a letter to the Winnipeg Tribune the Minister of Agriculture sought to clarify his viewpoint, and he stated at that time:
I said in every statement I have made that after we have sold ten to twelve million pounds of butter there will be no real surplus in Canada. We require what is left to have a sufficient supply of butter at all points across the country.
It does seem odd to me that we will have no surplus if we get rid of ten or twelve million pounds. Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a very optimistic speech to the house-and I have no doubt he has grounds for his optimism- pointed out the heavy demand for such commodities as iron, copper and nickel. This will have little bearing on the financial condition

of the farmers in my riding, where one of the chief occupations is dairy farming.
I find the position of the Minister of Agriculture difficult to understand in view of his persistent statement that there is no surplus, when reputable statistics reveal a surplus varying anywhere from 50 to 60 million pounds. It is a peculiar fact that speeches made either by himself or by others interested seem to take a certain line. We even find such statements made by officials of his own department. This line seems to take the following viewpoint:	"The production and the
consumption of butter are gradually getting closer together."
We hear that on all sides. It may be that in the long run they are getting closer together. We may be approaching the place where the production of butter may be equal to the domestic consumption, but we are a long way from that position. This result could only be achieved by an increase in the population of this country of possibly several million people. At the rate people are coming into this country-at rates accomplished by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, judged by last year's figures-that period is many years away.
The Minister of Agriculture has attempted to place himself in a position-at least it seems that way to me-wherein any attempt to criticize this surplus might be regarded as unpatriotic. First he points out that a certain amount is required for pipe-line needs. I think we would all agree in this house that we have had enough controversial debates about pipe lines without bringing in the butter situation. But at all events he points out the need for a supply of butter to the consumers. Then he points out that a large amount of butter is required for stabilization. That large amount of butter is somewhat indefinite. He points out that any amount is not surplus. His position is simply this. There is no surplus after we get rid of the surplus. You remember the old saw; if we had some bacon and if we had some eggs, we could have eggs and bacon.
Let us consider the position in Canada at the present time. The Canadian government floor price on butter is 58 cents per pound. The sale made to Czechoslovakia was at 37 cents a pound. But at the time that sale was made-the house was sitting last June and July-vigorous protests were made about the sale at that price to the communists. In the meantime New Zealand has protested to Canada against sales of this type. Since last
The Address-Mr. Blair fall the Canadian government has protested to the United States with regard to the United States policy of wheat marketing. New Zealand has now accused Canada of being guilty of the same sort of thing with butter as the United States is doing with wheat. The Canadian government has given assurance to New Zealand that our sales of butter on the world market would not be injurious to New Zealand trade. It is therefore apparent that in the government's policy there is some conflict between the marketing of butter and the marketing of wheat.
As I said, the first sale of butter to Czechoslovakia was in July of 1955. One must note that it was sold for export at a lower price than the market value here. It therefore did not interfere with the world price, which at that time was about 41 cents a pound. The cost of shipment in this case will be 3 cents a pound, and another 3 cents could be allowed if it were necessary for making it salt-free.
Another opportunity arose in November to sell eight million pounds to East Germany. In this case the price was 37 cents, which could be considered the London price less the cost of shipping. This month there is a further sale of one million pounds to Czechoslovakia at 39 cents a pound, but a new factor has entered into the business and that is probably the cause of the protest which New Zealand has made. I refer to the fact that there has been a rise in the world price of butter of about 9 cents a pound in the last few weeks. The price in London is now approximately 48 or 49 cents for Australian butter, slightly higher for New Zealand butter, and again a slightly higher rate for Danish butter. These are the sales which the government has made in an attempt to get rid of its so-called surplus. In view of all the statements that have been made the question arises, what is the amount of surplus butter on hand?
The province of Manitoba has entered into the dispute. Their department of agriculture has made a statement to the effect that the real surplus of butter amounts to about 50 million pounds. The national dairy council of Canada gives a much higher figure. Based on dominion bureau of statistics data I was able to work out the following statistics, and I should like to present them to the house. This is a table of dairy production and consumption trends. First we consider the livestock population of this country as of June 1, the number of milk cows on the farm. I go back for several years in arriving at these conclusions:
[Mr. Blaii
LIVESTOCK POPULATION (June 1st)- Milk cows on farms



DAIRY PRODUCTION AND 1951

[Stage Direction]
2,908,000
CONSUMPTION TRENDS 1952	1953
2,968,000	3,146,000
1952/51	1953/52
3,233,000
1954/53
3,312,000
1955/54
Actual change	
Percentage change 1955/1951	
MILK PRODUCTION (million pounds)- Production	
Actual change	
Percentage change 1955/1951	
	60,000	178,000	87,000	79,000
-14 per cent.				
1951	1952	1953	1954	1955 (est.)15,310	15,735	16,449	16,884	17,3001952/51	1953/52	1954/53	1955/54425	714	435	416
+ 13 per cent.
CREAMERY BUTTER (million pounds)-
Production	
257	281Consumption	
268	275Exports	
i	jImports (by govt, or under govt, permit)	
17Stocks (Dec. 1)	
5g	gf
Excess of production over consumption 1951 to 1955-5/ million pounds.
Excess of imports over exports	1951 to 1955-10 million pounds.
Per capita consumption	
19-2 lbs.	19 0 lbs1953	1954	1955 (est.)303	313	318286	293	301-	-	9 (preliminary-includes-	Jan./56)82	103	11419-3 lbs.	19-3 lbs.	19-2 lbs.
OLEOMARGARINE (million pounds)*-
Consumption	 107
Per capita consumption	 7.6 lbs.
* In recent weeks product being sold under brand name coloured spreads with
111
7-71bs.
heavy promotion
1953	1954	1955 (est.)110 116 125 7-41bs.	7-6 lbs.	8-01bs.
in province of Quebec with nearly one-third of total population.
a
w
n
o
*1
n
o
2
o
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Blair

As the table suggests, in recent weeks a product has been sold in the province of Quebec under the name of coloured spreads, and the province of Quebec has a very large population. No doubt the sales of that spread will go up and will help to maintain a higher average of edible oil consumption in the Dominion of Canada. I have another interesting table here on creamery butter production and stocks estimates. It is as follows:
Creamery Butter Production and Stocks Estimates
lbs.	lbs.
December 1, 1955-Stock .. 114,073,000 Estimated production Dec.-Apr. (+ 10 per cent over last year)	 76,431,000
Supply available	 190,504,000
(alternative)
Estimated domestic disappearance Dec.-Apr. (same
as last year)	 114,225,000	117,423,000
(+ 2-8% pop.)
Estimated exports	
3,000,000	3,000,000Total disappearance	
117,225,000	120,423,000Estimated stock May 1, 1956 73.279,000	70,081,000Pipeline needs	
10,000,000Surplus	
63,279,000
In regard to production, it has been said that last year was a bad year for production in the province of Ontario. There is no doubt that parts of this province had one of the most severe droughts that we have had for years. It was one of the driest years on record, and one would have thought that would have had considerable effect on the output of dairy products. Yet throughout the whole period of the summer production remained steady, or there was a slight increase. Therefore this fact will not bear out the argument that a large supply on hand is required in case of an emergency. I believe that figures are sometimes tiresome and difficult to listen to, but on the other hand facts must be brought out.
James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member realizes that he left out dairy butter.


William Gourlay Blair: I will speak on the dairymen later. I know the minister says that. He has already given warning that we must not talk about stocks of butter and we must not talk about butter in storage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that you cannot operate in this country without a storage of butter in the summer to carry the consumers through the winter.


William Gourlay Blair: I know we cannot. Therefore in general, sir, these figures would show an estimated stock of over 60 million pounds of
The Address-Mr. Blair butter on hand. Included in the set of figures I have given is the consumption of oleomargarine.
In considering this whole matter I gave warning to the Department of Agriculture, and to the whole dairy industry, that for some unexplained reason the fact is not yet realized that edible oil products are making dangerous inroads into the dairy industry; that at the present time at least one-third of the dairy industry market is gone, and that the milk producers are being lulled to sleep by statements that these products are not presenting the danger that was at first considered.
When the daily newspapers across Canada, about September 1, told the story of the sale of butter to East Germany, there was included as part of the story the following:
Government statistics show total butter consumption as continuing to go up although per capita consumption has remained about the same. In any event, margarine has not made the inroads on sales that it was feared it would.
There might be a grain of truth in the statement that would make it palatable to some, but there are other facts which have not been taken into consideration. In fact I consider that some facts are not known and they should be known. Some of these things have been distorted. No account has been taken of the growth in our population, and the fact remains that the consumption of butter has been standing still in recent years, despite the fact that our population has increased by more than two million people.
If we consider it on a per capita basis, there is no doubt that in view of our population growth it is clearly proven that the dairy farmers have lost one-third of their market owing to the inroads of edible oils. Figures have been juggled, and the dairy farmer is presented with a figure that is calculated to lull him to sleep under false security. If we consider the statement that there has been no loss, we find that the revised figure for the 1948 total butter consumption, before margarine, was 342 million pounds. In 1954 it was 312 million pounds, which would show a loss of 30 million pounds.
In the first year after substitutes were allowed the per capita consumption dropped to 22-11 pounds, and in 1954 there was a further drop to 20-69 pounds. In the year 1954, the year of substitutes, the consumption of those substitutes showed an increase of 10-9 pounds. This occurred in eight of the provinces where it was legal. This clearly shows the loss to the Canadian dairyman of a third of his market. This is a problem which the Canadian government should fully realize, and it should appreciate that it has
216	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blair grave responsibility in this respect. If action is not taken in this matter the Canadian dairy industry, as a great industry of the Dominion of Canada, will become a thing of the past.
It has become a fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have arrived at the unusual position where agriculture has become depressed, while there may be and is a boom in other sections of our economy.
In this same debate a year ago I pointed out the importance to our whole economy of the buying power of 450,000 dairy farmers in the Dominion of Canada, who together with their families and all the people who are connected with the dairy trade consume large quantities of manufactured goods. In fact the average farmer buys in the proportion of four to one as much in goods of every description as does the average urban consumer. Not only does he buy the necessities for his household, but he buys the products of industry in the nature of farm implements and machinery which he uses in his work on the farm. However, one thing is becoming increasingly apparent; that is, that the value of farm production is dropping; yet the farmer is still faced with high costs of the goods he buys while farm prices have not been increased. While this may make for cheaper food products, yet it is a condition of unbalanced economy which cannot be favourable to a great industry.
Then, sir, I would like to point out to you that at a meeting in London, Ontario, last week the Ontario chamber of commerce seemed to be very much aware of this situation. They agree that farm people are aware of the seriousness of the cost-price squeeze which has drastically cut farm income, and they are ready to discuss this matter.
The Minister of Agriculture in his speeches has taken pains to point out the fact that a large quantity of butter is considered necessary beyond immediate needs, to stabilize the price of butter, and he has pointed out that shortage of butter in one year brought extremely high prices to domestic consumers. Surpluses of some farm products and the recent developments in international trade have placed many Ontario farmers in a hopeless competitive position. The winter of 1951 was the year butter approached a price of 85 cents. It was known to the Department of Agriculture, months before, that a serious shortage of butter was in sight.


James Garfield Gardiner: The year you started your statistics, too.


William Gourlay Blair: Yes. In fact it should have been known to the Department of Agriculture six


months before this price was reached because in October, 1950, the board of directors of the national dairy council brought this matter to the attention of the government at a meeting with the chairman of the agricultural prices support board. They discussed this matter of the high prices that butter would reach unless steps were taken to increase the supply of butter through importations, with a view to protecting the people and preventing such a condition occurring.
The only way in which a rise could be prevented was by having on hand a sufficient supply of butter to prevent such a shortage and a consequent rise in price. Four months later the same organization, the national dairy council, again inquired if there was enough butter on hand to meet the needs of the consumers, and asked if any action had been contemplated by the agricultural prices support board to make sure that such a stock was on hand to relieve the situation.
This would seem to clarify the situation when the minister, in his speeches, points out that he is holding a large stock of butter on hand in order to stop speculation and to stabilize the market. However, during January and February of the year 1951 the trade was responsible for the importation of about 5 million pounds of butter to meet the shortage. When the agreement for the importation of 5 million pounds had been completed, order in council No. 372 was passed dated January 24, 1951, at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture, prohibiting any further imports.
It is a rather amazing fact that three days later the order in council was rescinded. This fact would seem to refute any arguments of the Minister of Agriculture that he has been responsible for the protection of the consumers, and his arguments of this date concerning the stabilizing of the price of butter. At the present time no doubt he uses this argument about stabilizing the price when he has an enormous quantity on hand.
The floor price of 58 cents per pound is absolutely necessary, because without a floor price of this amount there would be utter chaos in the whole dairy industry. However, in consideration of present conditions there are certain facts which we must recognize.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend is through with the other matter of importation, will he permit a question?


William Gourlay Blair: Yes, but I am going to finish this speech and then the minister can finish his speech later.
There is a trend toward increasing production, and even some increase in consumption. The argument that consumption and production will balance within the next year cannot

be proven, nor will this occur for many years to come, assuming that these rates continue, until Canada obtains a larger domestic market. As I stated before, a larger domestic market will only occur in the event of greater immigration to this country and an increase in its population. The development of our natural resources and increased manufacturing in Canada will necessitate a larger population and hence the increased market. A population increase of ten million people or more would take care of all our agricultural products, and possibly we would have none for export except wheat.
There is one bright spot in this picture and it concerns my own profession, because doctors are continually warning us to be discreet in our diet. There has been an attempt by those who market food to advise us to eat more butter, meat, apples, cheese and a hundred other prepared products. It is quite obvious that we might destroy our health by stuffing ourselves in an attempt to stabilize conditions, and thereby might suffer from indigestion. In this regard I might point out that under present conditions the government in its attempt to deal with surplus products is suffering a great deal from political indigestion.
It is not sufficient to obliterate the facts in this serious matter of agricultural commodities with a maze of figures. The facts must be faced, and no attempt made to create an optical illusion by figures will satisfy the Canadian farmer who finds himself in serious difficulty.
The dairy industry is vital to the economy of large segments of Canada. The government must come to grips with this problem; otherwise we are going to see the deterioration of an industry highly important to the economy of Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not correct that in 1951 17 million pounds of butter were brought in, during the period spoken of?


William Gourlay Blair: That is quite possibly so.


James Garfield Gardiner: You gave earlier the figure of 5 million pounds.


William Gourlay Blair: At the same time there was an order in council, that lasted three days, against any further importation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the butter was brought in.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all join with those who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The way in which these two hon. members acquitted themselves
The Address-Mr. Decore has brought honour not only to themselves but to the constituencies which they represent.
I am sure I am expressing the sentiments of all of us in this house when I say that we are happy to see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) again in good health and now able to continue with his duties.
I wish to inform this house with considerable regret that last Thursday in my constituency one of the old pioneers by the name of Wasyl Eleniak passed away. At the time of his death he had passed his 96th birthday. I mention his name because he was the first settler of Ukrainian origin who came to Canada. He and another man by the name of Pylypiwsky arrived in Canada in 1891, just 65 years ago. Mr. Eleniak was a fine example of a good Canadian, one who had vision and faith. After his arrival he witnessed the coming to Canada of thousands and thousands of his fellow countrymen who made their homes here. Pie also witnessed the contribution which those people made to Canada, both culturally and economically. Those people came from a land where they knew nothing but tyranny and oppression, and he witnessed the enthusiasm, the zeal and the love with which those people embraced their newly adopted land.
During the course of this debate considerable reference has been made to the wheat situation which exists in this country. As one representing a rural constituency engaged primarily in agriculture I should like to deal with the problem we are faced with in the marketing of our grain. I do this because I think there has been a lot of misrepresentation. There has been a barrage of criticism; and many uninformed solutions, such as barter trades, the acceptance of soft currencies, the acceptance of other fancy deals, have been suggested which if carried out would almost certainly have the tendency to destroy the wheat board system of marketing our grain.
We are all aware that there is a problem today which faces the western producer. The wheat board faces greater difficulty in the marketing of grain than at any time since the last war. The government is aware of this situation and has indicated this in the speech from the throne in the following words:
Canada has enjoyed, on the whole, a high level of prosperity. Some sectors of the economy have not fully participated in this increased well-being. In particular, although sales of wheat in the past five years have been at record levels, an unprecedented series of bumper harvests has made necessary the storage of abnormal stocks of grains both in elevators and on farms.
I think that is a clear, concise and frank statement which recognizes the problem.
218	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Decore Everyone knows that the marketing of wheat is not merely a Canadian problem, it is international in scope. I should like to refer to a statement made in the house by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), who has been a very strong critic of this government. I want to quote his figures as they appear on page 94 of Hansard of January 13. The hon. member said:
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.
Let us consider the situation in France. We find that in 1935-39 France imported annually 2-5 million bushels of wheat, but in 1955 France exported 92 million bushels of wheat. We find the same situation existing in other countries. This is due to the fact that there has been a heavy subsidization of wheat production in many countries of the world. This has been one important factor in the creation of this problem, and one over which the Canadian government had no direct control. All Canada can do, and I believe this is what we are trying to do, is to convince the importing countries that when the exporting countries are able to meet their needs it is not economically sound to encourage production by means of high internal prices.
Another factor which has contributed to the wheat problem and over which Canada has no control is the method followed by the United States in the disposal of their surplus grain. When we compare Canada with the United States we find that the population of the United States is over ten times that of Canada. We find that of every five bushels of wheat which they produce they are able to consume four bushels right at home. They can almost afford to give away the other bushel, or if they preferred they could even dump it in the ocean. Out of every five bushels of wheat produced in Canada we can hardly consume one bushel. We must find an export market for the other four bushels.
Since the United States has had thrust upon her a position of leadership in the western world she has felt compelled to give aid to many of these countries, and as one method of getting rid of her wheat she is disposing of it in the form of foreign aid. This country cannot afford the luxury of competing with the United States in the methods they use to dispose of their wheat.
A third and I think the most important reason for this problem, and one over which this government could hardly have any direct control, is the superabundant crops we have


had in Canada during the last five years. Reference to the Canadian wheat board report as revised-these figures have been quoted already-will show that for the years 1941-50 the average wheat crop was 362 million bushels, whereas during the last five years the average crop according to my computation was 506 million bushels. The world is simply not in position or is not able to absorb this five year record crop production in Canada, and the result has been that some has had to be carried over on the farms and in elevators.
As I say, the government of Canada has had no direct control over these three important factors which have caused the present world wheat problem.
In spite of these difficulties, what has the government succeeded in doing? I might say that in spite of strong protests from many quarters of Canada, the federal government has respected and upheld the wishes of the western producer by maintaining the wheat board system of grain marketing. This is a very important matter for the farmer of western Canada, who has been fighting for this for so many years. The farmer remembers the hungry thirties, a similar period of unsold surpluses, when in Alberta wheat sold for as low as 18 cents a bushel and at the same time no significant reduction was made in the surpluses.
The wheat board has adopted a policy whereby it has refused to handle surpluses by selling at greatly reduced prices. The wheat board levels things off. It does not throw our wheat on the world market. That does not mean to say it has to sit back and wait. It must be realistic, but it does not have to have a fire sale of the wheat.
Let us look at the record. If we refer to the wheat board report we may see what the farmer has been able to sell during these record crop years as compared with other years. If we take the ten-year period we find in the wheat board report the following round figures, obtained from the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, of producers' marketings of western Canadian grains: 1941-42, 227 million bushels; 1942-43, 267 million bushels; 1943-44, 329 million bushels; 1944-45, 351 million bushels; 1945-46, 237 million bushels; 1946-47, 335 million bushels; 1947-48, 247 million bushels; 1948-49, 294 million bushels; 1949-50, 320 million bushels; 1950-51, 368 million bushels. The average, according to my computation, is 295J million bushels annually. Compare that with the crop years 1951-52 and following. The figures, again, are as follows: 1951-52, 455 million bushels; 1952-53, 535 million bushels; 195354, 397 million bushels; 1954-55, 319 million

bushels. Again according to my computation, this comes to 427 million bushels annually. At the same time we find that, having sold better than average crops each and every year, prices have been maintained at a fairly high level.
When it comes to the question of coarse grains, the wheat board has encountered no serious difficulties during this bumper crop period and, according to reports, none are expected to be encountered for this crop year. I might also state that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has visited the province of Alberta and has made the statement -as I believe he has made the statement in this house-that it is anticipated that even this year's crop, a better than average crop, will be sold. Therefore if during the superabundant crop years we can sell a better than average crop at fairly good price levels without resorting to fire sales, without getting panicky and without getting into some of these fancy deals such as barter trades and soft currency deals, that is what the western farmer expects the board to do and continue to do.
We have heard a good deal said, especially in western Canada, about barter trade. I should like to say a word or two in connection with this matter. Our Canadian economy is as free as any economy in the world. Anything can be imported into Canada from anywhere, subject to our customs duties. Barter is a two-way trade. It ties one down and relates a certain product to another product.
Let us take an example. Let us assume that Canada has made a deal with West Germany whereby for a certain number of bushels of wheat we would get from West Germany 10,000 thrashing combines. That would imply that once we got these combines in this country the government would have to tell the farmer he would have to buy one of them. The government would be responsible for seeing that these combines were sold to the farmers. I wonder whether that is what the farmers or Canadians in general would want. It would mean that we would be imposing on the Canadian people federal controls which the Canadian people are not prepared to accept. It seems to me that barter is a most restrictive type of trade.
One hears of another solution, not only in the province of Alberta but also in the province of Saskatchewan and to some extent in Manitoba. There are those who tell you the convenient political myth that Canada should accept soft currencies for wheat. They create the impression that they have an easy answer to our wheat problem, whereas in fact they have no answer at all. When you
The Address-Mr. Decore say "accept soft currency", you mean "accept inconvertible currency". Of course there is no problem if it is convertible, for then you talk in terms of dollars. For example, Britain has convertible sterling and it also has blocked currency which is inconvertible. The wheat sold to Britain by many countries is sold for convertible sterling. The British tell their importers that they may buy wheat in any country of the world. It is significant to note that, as has already been mentioned in this house, the British trade commissioner recently said that Britain would not buy wheat from Canada for blocked sterling. Yet the United Kingdom in the past year bought more wheat from Canada than from all the other countries of the world combined.
It is true that the United States in some cases sells for non-convertible currency and uses that currency for expenses in foreign countries, including the building of airfields and in different forms of foreign aid. In connection with the subject of inconvertible currency or soft currency, I should like to read an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on December 15, 1955, under the heading "The Sterling Myth". The reason I read the editorial is that I think it gives a very good answer to those people who are peddling this solution to the producers of western Canada. The editorial reads:
The people who say that Canada could and should "sell" wheat for sterling fall into two classes. Some do not know what they are talking about, and some do; the latter, that is, know they are talking nonsense. But it is convenient nonsense, and particularly convenient for some Saskatchewan socialists; it gives an impression that they have a simple, government-dealing, non-capitalist answer to our wheat troubles, when in fact they have no answer at all.
For this reason, the myth that "sales" for sterling are possible and desirable no doubt will persist, in face of the most direct and simple evidence to the contrary. There are none so blind as those that do not want to see. But one is entitled to hope that the Saskatchewan myth-mongers will in time gain fewer dupes; that their allies of the other class-the ill-informed-will shrink.
Two weeks ago, on November 30, Mr. Gordon Bowen spoke to the convention of the Saskatchewan farmers' union. He said that Britain would not buy a bushel more wheat if Canada accepted payment in sterling. Mr. Bowen is the United Kingdom's senior trade commissioner in Canada; if anyone ought to know the official British policy in this matter, it is he. And his pronouncement surely is concrete enough, and sufficiently simple, to penetrate any head. Even those who profess not to be able to understand the most definite and simple statements of the case, made many times by Mr. Howe and other Canadians, may pay some attention to the official word of Britain as the buying country.
The editorial goes on:
There is one direct untruth that may, however, have to be disposed of first. It is sometimes said,

The Address-Mr. Decore by advocates of Canadian "sales" for sterling, that the United States now makes such sales. It does not.
The United States takes inconvertible foreign currencies from all kinds of countries whose currencies play no great part in international trade; whose governments therefore do not mind having such claims on them blocked in the hands of other governments; and which have no objection to living on charity.
The United Kingdom, for all its economic weakness, is not that sort of country, and sterling is not an unimportant currency. Sterling that is not blocked-sterling that can be used at all-is the same thing as dollars, to Britain and to everyone else. To take payment in such sterling would be no different at all from what we do now. Blocked sterling, on the other hand, is useless to Canada-it means simply giving wheat away-and to the United Kingdom the exchange of blocked sterling for wheat would represent a further weakening in the status of sterling as an international currency. The Canadian advocates of sterling sales are apt to pose as friends of Britain, even though it be at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. In fact, they are not anything of the kind. They are doing nothing at all but peddle a convenient political myth.
I think that is a very good answer to those who do in fact peddle this convenient political myth. We have also heard criticism in the house by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to the effect that we should have a more aggressive sales policy with respect to the sale of wheat. I do not think selling wheat to other countries is the same thing as selling Fuller brushes or vacuum cleaners, but the fact is that in the last few months members of the wheat board and officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce have visited the major wheat importing countries. These countries include Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Austria. In addition to these visits we have the efforts made by the Canadian trade commissioners in these countries.
At the same time the Canadian wheat board has invited representatives from wheat importing countries to visit Canada. We have had visitors from Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Switzerland, Ireland, Ecuador, Venezuela and Germany, so they could see for themselves how our grain is produced, how it is being stored, how it is being inspected and how it is being handled, because we believe we have the best system in the world and we want the world to know.
The government has made other efforts. As a result of direct action on the part of the government we find that there has been an increase in storage facilities through additions to the Halifax terminal elevators and the elevators at Churchill, and through a system of accelerated depreciation to elevator companies either at country points or terminals. In the last two and a half years there has
[Mr. Decore.1
been a total increase in storage accommodation of nearly 40 million bushels.
The only point I should like to suggest to the government, especially the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is that whereas the privilege of accelerated depreciation is accorded to elevator companies under which they may write off for income tax purposes over a period of three years any building they erect for storage, the same consideration should be given to farmers who store their grain on their own farms. Instead of being able to write off depreciation for income tax purposes over a period of 20 years they should be able to do so in the same period of three years as in the case of the elevator companies.
Finally I should like to say that the western farmer expects, the western farmer insists, that the policy of the government be, first of all, to maintain the wheat board system of marketing. The farmers have fought for the wheat board for many years and they do not want to lose it. Second, the wheat board together with the Department of Trade and Commerce should continue to follow aggressive sales methods by selling as they have been selling, especially during the years of better than average crops. Third, the wheat board together with the Department of Trade and Commerce should endeavour to maintain a fairly high price level by refusing to get panicky, by refusing to resort to fire sale prices, by refusing to indulge in the suggested barter trading or the acceptance of soft currencies or other fancy deals which would have the tendency that the farmer would get less for his wheat or the taxpayers would be burdened with more taxes. I also express the hope, and of course this is beyond the control of the government, that for the crop year 1956 we will have another bumper crop in the west.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. During this debate the discussion has centred largely around agriculture, and I think rightly so because agriculture is our basic industry. It is actually the keystone of our whole economy.
We find, however, that, in spite of the apparent over-all buoyancy of our economy last year, we have many problems pertaining to our basic industry. We find that agriculture is perhaps in as precarious a position as it has ever found itself in for a number of years. We find that farm income

has shrunk by better than a billion dollars in the last four years; to be exact, by $1,200 million.
By the same token, we find that agriculture embraces some 20 per cent of our population. Reducing the matter a little further, we find that they have received, in their own right, much less than 10 per cent of the national income, or in other words less than 50 cents on the dollar as compared to their fair share of the national wealth.
When you honestly appraise the whole situation I think you will And that something must be wrong somewhere down the line. I think it is the responsibility of parliament to sit down and soberly and intelligently appraise the whole situation. Instead of getting out and beating political drums I think it is our responsibility as human beings, charged with a grave responsibility, to deal honestly and sincerely with our problems rather than to reduce the matter to a political drum-beating level.
I believe one of the things that perhaps has influenced the depressed standards prevailing throughout agriculture is the fact that agriculture is always in a price-cost squeeze. The farmer is always obliged to buy on a controlled market. By the same token, he is always compelled to sell his commodities on an uncontrolled market.
Another thing that I think has contributed quite considerably to the plight of our economy today dates back to about 1944 or 1945 when, through the medium of the Bret-ton Woods agreement, the trader nations were obligated to go to the moneychangers and change their pounds sterling or their other currency into terms of Canadian or United States dollars. I think that was when many of our former substantial customers were forced, as a matter of self-preservation, to try to become self-sufficient with regard to Jhe growing of wheat.
True enough, in many cases it was apparently necessary to subsidize the wheat-growing industry in those countries in order to encourage their farmers to take over and try to produce in terms of self-sufficiency. As was mentioned just a few moments ago, I believe France was a striking example. We used to sell France a considerable amount of wheat, but now, for that very reason, she has become a surplus producer of wheat. According to figures submitted just a few moments ago they marketed some 92 million bushels of wheat on their own.
I am certainly not one of those who feel unhappy about having a surplus. I do not think there is anything wrong about it. I think it is something to be happy about. But
The Address-Mr. Yuill I believe our basic problem is one of distribution. I think we have fairly well mastered the art of producing, but I do not think we have done a good job in the technique of distribution. In spite of the fact that we have a billion or more bushels of surplus wheat in Canada today, on the world market I do not think it amounts to a surplus at all. When you realize that three out of every five people in the world will go to bed hungry tonight, it does not seem to me that the problem is altogether one of lack of production. We have the production here but we have not the medium through which it can be distributed to the needy people of the world.
We hear a great deal about ways and means. Some people are critical of the suggestions we have offered on more than one occasion. With regard to international trade, we should consider a mutual agreement policy whereby we will trade, on equivalent values, one commodity for another. We find that this procedure has worked previously. We find that it is being used today.
I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not take kindly to barter, but yesterday I was agreeably surprised to hear that there is at least one member of the Liberal party who believes in barter trade.
I enjoyed very much the speech of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). He was loud in his praises of a barter deal that was consummated by the province of British Columbia. He seemed to be quite happy with it. I think it was a good stroke of business. The only thing with which I could disagree is the fact that he took credit for the Liberal government of British Columbia. I wonder if he has forgotten that British Columbia has had a Social Credit government for almost four years and that they were the ones who carried to such a successful conclusion that little barter deal.


Mr. Philpott:: No; it was the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) who carried it to a conclusion.


Mr. Quelch:: Get the Minister of Trade and Commerce to page the Minister of Fisheries. Then you might learn something about barter deals.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, let us hold our tempers here.


Charles Yuill: So long as parliament sits here I suppose there will always be differences of opinion as to the proper techniques to use. I was going to say I think this is a problem that has reached the proportions of a crisis. It is not a crisis, particularly, but it is a situation that calls for the best thinking from every group in this house. I think it is quite possible to find some acceptable medium
222	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Yuill through which we can deal with our trader nations without getting too hot and bothered about soft currencies, barter or anything else. I believe it is essential that we do so. But when we get to the point of setting up barriers that will not permit us to deal on those reasonable and natural levels, I think it is time we had a look at the situation and tried to do something about changing it.
So far as our production today is concerned, looking at it from a world point of view I do not think we have any surpluses at all. With the growing population in the world today, before many years I think we may have the problem of producing enough to feed those people, if we can do it. We are doing a good job of it now.
Then I believe we should give a little bit more thought to the main problem, at least as I see it. I refer to the problem of distribution. We have heard a lot about butter and butter surpluses, and the medium through which our butter is being sold. I am one of those people who believe that there is such a thing as charity. Charity should begin at home. If we are going to give anything away we should start first of all by giving to our own Canadian citizens who are in the low income brackets. We should give to the war veterans, the senior citizens, the mothers on mothers' allowances, blind pensioners, physically handicapped pensioners and others receiving social benefits today.
If the government took a little more realistic view of the matter and enclosed in the envelopes of the recipients of those pensions five butter coupons every month, they could take them to me or to some other merchant and get five pounds of butter for 37 cents a pound. The merchapt in turn could cash them in and replace the five pounds of butter. If we did that we would be doing something that would be not only beneficial to the internal economy but we would be practising Christian and moral ethics that would be worth while as well.
If the time ever comes when we have to give something away, we should start at home. I know there are arguments that it would disrupt the butter trade in Canada. I just wonder whether it would. Many people in those income brackets who would receive butter are not able to buy butter today. They either have to go without it or resort to buying margarine as a substitute. I was at a convention in Alberta not long ago, and the delegates were hot and bothered about whether or not margarine should be coloured.
If butter were made available to underprivileged people at fire sale prices, instead of shipping it behind the iron curtain, we would be doing something of which we could be proud.
[Mr. YuiU.1

As far as agriculture is concerned, I believe the government has given serious thought to the best ways and means of helping. Personally I feel that the two-price system would help solve the problem confronting agriculture in this country. Through that medium we would at least have some semblance of parity and some evidence of a reasonable equation between the cost of production and the amount received from the sale of the product. However, the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to feel that this would not be a wise move.
I am not questioning the point particularly. From what I can get from the speech from the throne I feel that the sum total of the assistance to agriculture is geared to the $1,500 limit loan at 5 per cent. I come from a community that is basically agricultural. I am just wondering how many farmers will be able to avail themselves of it, desirable as it may be. Very few in my part of the country will be able to qualify. If some of my constituents already have a commitment at the bank I wonder what the reaction of the banker will be? Will the farmer be required to apply the loan to his former commitment? If so, then he will be deprived of any assistance under this new arrangement. I wonder whether there will be any stipulation that this must be a loan independent of any other commitment that an individual may have with the bank.
That is something of great importance to all concerned. We should be willing to sit down and try to come up with the best answers. It would be a wise man who could give a complete answer to this question. Until we are prepared to sit down like human beings and deal with these things we shall never accomplish too much. In our group we have always been champions of agriculture. Many of my colleagues have already expressed the views of this group pertaining to our attitude toward farm-stored grain; therefore I shall not deal with it. I should like to predict that as far as the $1,500 loan is concerned it is going to be a great disappointment to many people who are so urgently in need of special consideration. I am not going to deal any further with agricultural difficulties.
I offer my congratulations to the Minister of Public Works for finally completing the government building in the town of Edson in my constituency. It was a long and perilous detour, but at last we are getting the building in the town that we have needed for many years. On behalf of my people, I express thanks to the Minister of Public Works for getting on with the erection of that much-needed building.

We have another little problem in that part of the country. It relates to what some day is going to be the best part of the trans-Canada highway in the Dominion of Canada, namely Jasper. We have a road that goes through from Jasper to the British Columbia boundary. It will be known some day as the west gate of Jasper national park. There is a road which is passable in fair weather. It is a road that ultimately will be the route of the new trans-Canada highway. What the people in that part of the country would like to see is some favourable consideration by the minister concerned to building that road up to a standard that would be compatible with transportation that would no doubt enhance the tourist aspects of Jasper national park. Last year, according to provincial statistics we had an increase of something over 11 per cent in the number visiting Jasper national park. Since that is one of the show places of the dominion I think anything the department could do to establish a through route from Jasper to the west gate would be not only appreciated but would enhance the tourist trade, particularly, would greatly enhance the public service, and would be welcomed by those who are desirous of coming through from British Columbia into Alberta.
We have in Alberta, up to the east gate, one of the finest highways in Canada. As a matter of fact it is definitely up to trans-Canada standards. It is not completed but it should be, weather permitting, this year. If it is not finished this year, at the latest it will be finished next year.
In British Columbia they have a commitment by the provincial government that they will build a standard highway to the west gate of Jasper national park. If that is done, then I would urge the minister to give consideration to that much-needed connecting link that today is only navigable under very hazardous conditions; to go out there and begin the plan in the not too distant future, and see to it that sufficient money is voted for the completion of that program.
There is one other little suggestion I would like to make, and I do this in all kindliness. In the town of Jasper I think the people have contributed quite considerably to the tourist set-up from many different angles. They perhaps do not contribute as much in dollars and cents as people living in cities out of the park, but they do contribute in their own way quite a considerable amount of money. They do possess a considerable amount of good will, and without the people of Jasper I am sure that park would be anything but the wonderful summer resort it is today for tourists.
The Address-Mr. Mclvor
I would suggest to the minister that he give consideration to setting up some kind of council comparable to that proposed to be set up in the Northwest Territories. These fine people could sit down and by popular choice delegate to two or three or four or any reasonable number the responsibility of co-operating with the local government administration. I think the people would be quite qualified to offer kindly suggestions and by their mutual good will and co-operation enhance the over-all public relations within the town of Jasper.
With all due respect to those who are charged with the responsibility of looking after the park affairs there, I do feel that it would lighten their job. It would pay off in many ways, financially as well as in terms of good will. I would ask the minister if he will think that over, and I hope that in the not too distant future we may have a little more harmony and that over-all good will that I feel is so essential to the happiness of the people who are obliged to live within the confines of the national park.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very happy to be here listening to the speeches from both sides of the house. I think you will agree that the speeches delivered up to the present time have had more pep in them than at any time in the last 20 years.
I want to welcome the new members to the house. There are a great number, and if I would be allowed to give advice to the new members I would say, always be sure of what you are going to say and be sure that it is right. I would like to welcome the page boys. All but two are new this year. Perhaps we forget the boys who are, in a sense, a very essential part of the efficient carrying on of the business of this house. We bid them welcome.
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on his initiative in doing new things. Of course I support him in his congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion in reply to the speech from the throne. 1 just want to second what he has said. Also we do like to think that our Prime Minister is capable of doing new things. It was a new thing to request a lady member of the house to be the first speaker. That is in keeping with our gracious Queen of England, who heads the social life of the British commonwealth of nations.
Another new thing he did was in his appointments to the Senate. One of the first jokes I heard when I came down here was told by the late hon. member for Cartier, Sam Jacobs, who had given outstanding service to this house, who was noted for his polish
224	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mclvor as a critic and as a speaker, and noted for his humour. When he was asked if he would consider going to the Senate his reply was, "I have got Jew consideration." Now the Prime Minister has appointed a Jew to the Senate for the first time. Not only that, but the first time in my experience he has appointed a Conservative to the Senate, and three independents; and we congratulate him.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I would rather the former hon. member for Spadina was sitting in his seat here in the house and giving his outstanding service than any other place.
During the recess my better half and I thought we would take a trip west and see what was happening way out there. I remember that when I came to this country in '94 the slogan was "Go west, young man", and I think anybody who goes west will always get an earful. I travelled through Jasper, up into Yukon and back to Vancouver and I found that there were many people throughout all that country who were prophesying great things for Canada.
First there was the Social Credit prophet who said that Social Credit would sweep [DOT]the country. That was quite a statement, and perhaps he was right. Then the C.C.F. prophet said that the C.C.F. would at least be the official opposition in the next house. Then I noticed that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) made the prediction that the Conservatives would be the leaders of the house. I would agree with all three prophecies if there were no Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada.
I enjoyed reading the speech from the throne, because it contained so many things that I thought were fine. The farmers are to be considered and it is a well-known fact that if you have prosperous farmers you will have a prosperous country. The unemployed are to be considered, and there is to be equal pay to women for equal work, something for which we have been hungry for years.	.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) was the first to bring in a private bill in this connection. I remember asking a former minister of labour, the late Hon. Norman Eogers, why it was that girls who taught in schools did not get the same pay as men, and why girls serving behind counters selling goods did not get the same pay as men. He just smiled and said, "We have not much to do with that."
I know from private conversations with the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) that this matter has been receiving considerable thought during past years. I know that in the Fort William district there are ladies


who receive the same pay as men for doing the same work. We have two or more postmistresses who receive the same pay for doing the same work, and that is only right. One thing that concerns me in connection with employment of the fair sex is that they must retire at 60 years of age instead of 65. If they are to receive the same pay as men let them be retired at 65 the same as the men.
One or two things have happened in Fort William which I think the government and the country should know about. Fort William had 629 days without a fatal accident, which I think is a record of which any city or any member of parliament can be proud. I am certainly thankful for it. It shows that the chief of police, the mayor and city council and the local paper, the Times-Journal, have been on the job advertising and advising. It also shows that the people of Fort William believe in the provincial slogan, "If you drink, don't drive; if you drive, don't drink." That record was broken just a little while back, but we hope to have another record later on.
Fort William is trying to co-operate with the Minister of Labour in providing winter work. During the past year when dredging operations were being carried on, one of two main pipes going under one of our rivers was broken, but it was decided to repair this during the winter by putting a channel under the river. It is hoped that the government will pay at least 20 per cent of the cost. The city is also putting in trunk sewers as winter work. The government should assist in this, and if they do not I am going to tickle somebody under the ear. I think the government is sensible in supporting winter work as it will provide employment for many people.
Before I came down here a committee of citizens called upon me and asked me to do certain things. First, they asked me to tell the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) that they supported him absolutely in his new plans for the completion of the trans-Canada highway. I think the minister has shown initiative, that he understands the needs of Canada and has sympathy with the unemployed. The governments of the provinces are asked to pay only a certain percentage, but they must administer it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) said they should pay 100 per cent and he wanted even more than that if he could get it in connection with roads in British Columbia.
I do not agree with him, because he would not give the farmers anything by way of help when he is asking us to subsidize the building of roads.
Then I was told to support the gas pipe line. Two experts, the hon. member for

Trinity (Mr. Carrick) and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle), have provided the house with considerable information. Hon. members would do well to read their speeches in Hansard as each hon. gentleman did a very good job from his own point of view.
I do not expect that the gas pipe line will bring the millennium to the head of the lakes. I know I will not change from electricity to gas or from oil to gas, because we do not like too much gas around our house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and his associates have been considering this pipe line. We sat in the committee, one of the best committees of the house, and the company was given permission to build an all-Canada pipe line. I remember when a delegation from the lakehead came down here to make sure that the gas pipe line would go through the lakehead, and the minister got the two companies together to get them to co-operate. I asked him if that was the last hurdle in the development of the gas pipe line and he just shook this head* He knew better than I that more money was needed.
This committee told me to support the government in helping the farmers sell their grain or keep it in storage. The members of the committee believed, just as I believe, that the farmers work longer hours and get less pay than anybody else.
There is one thing we want the government to do, and in this connection I refer to what was said by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). It will be noted that I am quoting a Conservative member, but there are some Conservatives who talk sensibly. The lampreys in lake Superior should be wiped out, and money should be spent in an effort to save our lake trout, the finest table fish in existence.
There are three things that I am going to support later on and to which I want the government to give wholehearted consideration. The first is pensions for veterans who served in action in world war I or world war II. I brought this up three years ago and have been bringing it up since. A man who has served in a war should receive some consideration. One friend of mine had four Christmas dinners in the trenches. One man was asked to go out into the trenches where there was water, and he did not have dry feet for two days. He spent 31 days in a trench. You cannot tell me that would not take away years from his existence. Veterans who have risked their lives and cut down their length of life should have pensions at the age of 60 without a means test. We shall go into this matter again.
Another thing we recommend is that civil servants who retired when their salaries were 67509-15
The Address-Mr. Mclvor small should have their cases examined. One case brought to my notice was that of a man who served for 37 years as a postman. He carried the mail until his feet gave out, and then he had to retire. I believe he was earning $1,600 a year at the time, and he was paid a pension accordingly. He is still receiving that pension. He should have his pension increased in proportion to the increases in salaries since that time.
A third matter we suggest is that the blind should receive pensions without a means test. We shall also deal with this matter again.
I should also like to say that I am perhaps more convinced than ever that the government should go ahead with the provinces in establishing a national health insurance plan. For two years I sat on committees of this house studying this subject. We brought in a bill which I thought was very good, whereby a contributory pension would be paid to patients and they would be allowed to choose their own doctors.
This year in Fort William we had a case of a man and a boy who had to pay $30 a day for nursing only, with hospital and doctor s expenses added. One lad 15 years of age had to lie on his face for three months. His back, arms and legs were burnt, and he lost his two hands. A boy like that, from a home of honest workers, should have consideration. As you would expect, the city of Fort William would not ignore such a case. The West Fort Kiwanis club there organized a local benefit society. We raised at least $8,000 and are still raising more, because we want to give that boy a chance to occupy a position in life. I am not asking any member of the house for anything but, of course, the door is open.
I should like to say a word about external affairs. It has been brought to my attention many times that we should have a department of peace. We have departments of national defence, national revenue, agriculture, trade and commerce and many other departments, but we have no department of peace. I do not think that is right. I read his speeches, and I know the minister of external affairs believes in the Prince of Peace, and his department is really a department of peace. Judging from his speeches, the name of that department might very well be changed from the Department of External Affairs to the department of peace.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the house for listening to me once again, and I am happy to note that nobody is sleeping.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of privilege. This morning I apparently used an unparliamentary term

The Address-Mr. G. S. White to designate the inaccuracies, wrong information and misstatements in the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud).
I am most anxious to withdraw any unparliamentary term I may have used in describing the hon. member for Gloucester. My strong convictions and devotion to the cause of the maritimes' rights incite me with fury whenever I see some hon. member from the maritimes being so lukewarm toward our tragic problems in the maritime provinces and their valiant people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was this state of mind which prompted me when I called the hon. member for Gloucester a name not permitted in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had occasion to read the words to which the hon. member has referred in the blues of Hansard, and I think it warrants going a little further than the hon. member has gone. I think the words should be withdrawn without any qualification.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to do so.


Mr. G. S. White (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to refer first to one matter mentioned in the speech from the throne, which stated that at this session the Dominion Succession Duty Act will be amended. I had hoped since the close of the war that the dominion government would give up the taxes it collects under this act, as in my opinion all such revenue belongs purely to the provinces.
I was interested to read in the press only this morning a comment that the dominion government, especially the Department of National Revenue, was anxious to retain a succession duty because the returns that had to be filed on any estate gave the government valuable information in dealing with the collection of income tax. That may or may not be true, but I would say to the minister that in the opinion of many people, especially in the provinces where they still maintain the right to levy and collect succession duty, this tax does bear most heavily on many people.
The minister knows that the exemption, which is now $50,000, was placed at that figure when our dollar was worth a great deal more than the dollar is worth today. That exemption is allowed in every estate irrespective of the relationship of the person to whom the money may pass. There is a further injustice, at least in my opinion. Once that estate exceeds $50,000 the whole amount of the estate becomes taxable. I for one would be most anxious at some time to hear

some explanation by the minister as to how he can justly and fairly say that an estate of $49,990 should be exempted from all succession duty but an estate of $50,100 should be subject to duty on the full amount. I should like also to mention to the minister that the present exemptions under the dominion act of $20,000 to the widow and $5,000 to children under a certain age, are too small and should be increased. I only mention this to the minister, because I realize that at a later date there will be ample opportunity for discussion when the bill is brought before the house.
I was disappointed that the speech from the throne did not contain some reference to legislation pertaining to veterans. I had hoped that the government would have realized the error it made in the amendments it brought down last year to the War Veterans Allowance Act, in that it did not accede to the requests made by the Canadian Legion that the ceiling be placed at $1,200 for single men and $2,000 for married veterans. This matter has been before the house on many 'occasions, and members from all parties have made most earnest pleas to the minister on behalf of those veterans who are entitled to receive war veterans allowances.
In particular it seems to me that at this very late date the veterans of the first world war, who must be getting close to the age of 60 and whose numbers are decreasing every year, should be given some special additional consideration. Only today I believe I heard a member again asking the government to make the war veterans allowance payable to the veterans of world war I who served only in England, which under the act is not classed as a theatre of war. While no mention is made in the speech from the throne of any legislation for veterans, I for one sincerely hope that the minister will introduce legislation to deal particularly with the raising of income ceilings for war veterans allowance recipients and making the amount payable to veterans who only served in England.
I see that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here, and I am sure his attention has been drawn to the December issue of The Legionary in which there is an article entitled, "A National Cenotaph." I am sure there are many members of the house who have seen and been impressed by the memorials and cenotaphs erected in various other capitals of the world. It seems to me that in this Canada of ours surely now, ten years after the end of the war, we should have a national cenotaph in memory of those who served not only in world war I but in world war II and other

wars. I hope the minister will have something to say during the session on the question of a national cenotaph.
In the January issue of the same magazine there is an article by Adam W. Williams entitled, "The Disability Table", to which I am sure the attention of the parliamentary assistant has been drawn. I was most interested to read the table found here, which it is stated was published in 1918. No doubt there have been a great many changes in the disability table since 1918 both by way of increases in the percentage rates and additions to the table. It is interesting to note in the article that the Legion requested the pension commission to publish the current table, and the reply of the commission is quoted as follows:
It is not considered that this document (the table of disabilities), which has been prepared for intercommission use, would serve any useful purpose to the Legion whose officers, at their dominion headquarters, have ready access to the chairman and chief medical adviser.
The article goes on to point out that the Legion officers in Ottawa do have access to the table, but says that the Legion believes the table should be made available to their service bureau officers. I would suggest that it should be made public so the local physician who treats a veteran may have the benefit of it. The article further points out that the act states:
The estimate of the extent of a disability shall be based on the instructions and a table of disabilities to be made by the commission for the guidance of physicians and surgeons making medical examinations for pension purposes.
There is nothing there to indicate that the table is a secret document. If there is any special reason why the table should be kept secret I am sure the many members of the house who are veterans would be glad to know what it is.
On other occasions I have mentioned in the house the failure to observe Armistice day as a national holiday. Last year I quoted a resolution passed by the county council of my country which reads as follows:
That since, by the statutes of Canada, November 11th is designated as a public holiday, our government be urged to enact legislation that November 11th not only be declared a national holiday, but that it also be observed as such.
Of course there are some people who say that we have far too many holidays. The day before Armistice day or on Armistice day you will notice that in the big city newspapers the full-page advertisements of certain stores will indicate that two minutes of silence will be observed, or that the store will not open until two minutes after eleven
67509-15J
The Address-Mr. G. S. White o'clock. This day means a great deal to the veterans of Canada, and I think I am safe in saying that all the Legion branches resent the fact that Armistice day is not generally observed as a holiday throughout the Dominion of Canada. If the parliament of the Dominion of Canada is in session at that time parliament does not observe Armistice day as a holiday.
I should like to concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) with respect to the time limit in making assessments of income tax returns. He referred to the long delay and the fact that the income tax department can go back and reassess farmers, small businessmen and other taxpayers of that kind. I have here a resolution passed by the county council of the county of Hastings which was sent to them by the county council of the county of Middlesex. The resolution reads as follows:
Be it resolved that any farmer, individual or business with a net annual income of $10,000 or less, who files an income tax return and no action is taken on it within six months, that this return become final and complete.
There is another matter I should like to draw to the attention of the government. It is one that has been commented upon many times before, especially last session when the Municipal Grants Act was amended. I refer to the fact that in the smaller towns and villages the government pays no compensation in lieu of taxes. There are hundreds of villages and towns across the country with one, two or three federal buildings, and they are not able to qualify for compensation under the act as it stands at the present time. Yet these small municipalities, which are so hard pressed for money today, have to supply many essential services to government buildings for which they receive no payment. There are such things as snow removal, streets, sidewalks, lighting, garbage collection, fire and police protection and many other services of that nature. It is rather difficult for the average real estate owner in a small village to understand why his taxes should have to go to supply these services to government buildings.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that a most welcome announcement in his budget would be that in future all federal property will be assessed in the usual way and taxes will be paid thereon. At the same time another most welcome announcement by the Minister of Finance would be that as far as municipalities and school boards are concerned, the sales tax will not be applied to any purchases made by them.

The Address-Mr. G. S. White In the Globe and Mail of today there is the announcement of the establishment of the new townsite near the village of Bancroft, which is the centre of several new uranium mines now coming into production. To date two of these mines have made contracts whereby $65 million worth of uranium concentrates will be purchased by the federal government. The village of Bancroft is the closest village to these various mines. At the present time the small inadequate post office in that village is unable to supply the necessary services required by the large influx of new people in this district. I have had the matter up with the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe). His officials have made certain inspections, and I believe they have made certain recommendations, but to dale nothing has been done.
I pointed out to the Postmaster General some time ago that eventually he will have to erect a new building there. At the present time there are several highly desirable sites available. If he delays, those sites will not be available at a later date. The post office at the present time is not suited for a village a third the size of Bancroft. There is insufficient space not only for the public but for the staff. All mail coming into and going out of the office has to be carried from the street, around the building and into the post office. There is no such thing as driving in at the side or around the building. The post office is located on a highway on a sloping hill, without any facilities for public parking. 'There is no accommodation for the various mail contractors who operate rural routes from this post office. There are two wickets, which are entirely insufficient. At the present time the post office at Bancroft has requests for over 300 boxes which cannot be installed for the simple reason that in the post office there is no room to instal them. I find that in the next riding, which is represented by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), there are three new post offices located at Killaloe Station, Barrys Bay and Eganville respectively; yet the revenue from the Bancroft post office is from three to four times as much as that from any one of those post offices.
It may be just a coincidence that those three offices just over the line were erected in the minister's riding. At the same time, I feel that the Postmaster General should give immediate attention to the situation that exists in Bancroft. Any improvements they are attempting to make in the present building can only be described as of a temporary and makeshift nature. The developments that are going on now and that will continue in
[Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
that district indicate that the only answer is a new federal building with proper accommodation.
I would therefore say in a most kindly way to the minister and to his parliamentary assistant who, I will say, has been most helpful to me in the matter, that they ought to see that something is done at once to begin the erection of a new building in that district.
As to the matter of cheese, I wish to concur in the remarks made yesterday in this house by the hon. member for Oxford and the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) when he referred to the plight of the dairy farmer in Ontario. In the debate last year I urged the Minister of Trade and Commerce to pass an order in council whereby cheese would be placed under the export-import act. Previously in the house the minister had made certain answers which indicated that it could not be done. But I have noticed that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that the method I suggested in my speech was not feasible, was not correct or could not be carried out.
When the minister spoke yesterday he was apparently pleased with the surplus that we have. At the same time he is adding to that surplus by allowing the importation of millions of pounds of Cheddar cheese from New Zealand. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is under any delusion as to how the cheese people of eastern Canada feel about the importation of cheese from New Zealand, I would simply say this to him. Let him attend any meeting of cheese producers in eastern Ontario, and let him attempt to explain to them why it is necessary to import millions of pounds of Cheddar cheese into Ontario.
The various county councils in eastern Ontario have all been passing resolutions urging the government to impose proper tariff protection. I will read one resolution that I believe was sent to the Minister of Agriculture. It is as follows:
That Hastings county council express approval of the recommendation of the Ontario federation of agriculture, that the dairy industry of Canada be given adequate tariff protection; and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Hon. Jas. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture and to Mr. F. S. Foil well, M.P., and Geo. S. White, M.P.
No doubt the Minister of Agriculture has received many of these resolutions. What he does with them I do not know. But when these people pass these resolutions I should like to point out to the minister that they want something done about them. Their livelihood depends on it. Not long ago I read in the papers a statement by an official of

one of the agricultural associations who described the importation of Cheddar cheese as the worst slap in the face the Ontario farmer has ever received.
Even at this late date I am going to ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce if they will not see that the necessary order in council is passed whereby the importation of cheddar cheese will be placed under the export-import act. Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked for some assurance that no more cheddar cheese would be imported from New Zealand. At that time he said he did not expect-I will be through in a minute, Mr. Speaker-any further importations for another three or nine months. Sure enough, in exactly nine months along come three to five million pounds more cheese.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine);: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, it is a real pleasure for me to congratulate the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Laflamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I say it is a real pleasure because they are both friends of mine. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Timiskaming is not in her seat. But I say to her through you, Mr. Speaker, that the speech she made was not only an honour to herself but also to the fine constituency she represents so well in this house.
(Translation):
I also wish to congratulate the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme). He has shown that he has the makings of a good member of parliament and he will undoubtedly prove to be a worthy successor to our former colleague, Mr. Philippe Picard, now Canadian ambassador to Argentina.
(Text):
Last summer I was privileged to be a member of the Canadian delegation to the NATO parliamentary association meeting that took place in Paris. The initiative for this meeting was taken by our Canadian NATO parliamentary association, and it was a great success. Nearly 200 parliamentarians representing the 15 countries that belong to NATO were at this meeting, and the Canadian representatives had an opportunity to meet a great many of the other delegates.
This meeting was devoted primarily to contacts and to general discussion. However,
The Address-Mr. Cannon an important resolution was passed inviting the Speakers of the parliaments concerned to send delegates to yearly meetings, expressing the wish that the governments of NATO countries facilitate such meetings and providing for the organization of a continuing committee with secretarial assistance.
The main subject discussed at the Paris meeting was the development of economic and cultural co-operation among NATO nations as contemplated in article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. It was suggested that future meetings of NATO parliamentarians should devise ways and means of implementing article 2 by facilitating trade and cultural exchanges between NATO countries.
At the briefing we received from General Gruenther of supreme headquarters allied powers, Europe, known as SHAPE, it was suggested that these meetings of NATO parliamentarians are an excellent thing because as all NATO countries are democratic countries, their governments are dependent on public opinion for whatever they do, and it is very important that the parliamentarians of NATO countries be familiar with NATO so they can explain it to their constituents and enlist their support for NATO, without which, as I said, Mr. Speaker, the governments of these NATO countries would be incapable of giving NATO the support it so richly deserves.
It was also mentioned at that meeting that the alliance of countries around the north Atlantic should develop among the NATO countries the same cultural and economic ties and co-operation that existed among the nations that surrounded the Mediterranean at the time of the Roman empire; with the difference, Mr. Speaker, that the nations that developed those cultural and economic ties around the Mediterranean were held together by the force of the Roman empire, while on the contrary the nations of the North Atlantic treaty are united by the free will of their democratic governments elected by the free vote of their people.
I noted with satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, that the final communique of the meeting of the North Atlantic council held last month in Paris contained the following paragraph:
The council recognized that recent developments in the international situation made it more necessary than ever to have closer co-operation between the members of the alliance as envisaged in Article II of the treaty. They decided to instruct the permanent council to examine and implement all measures conducive to this end.
I am sure that those who attended the meeting of NATO parliamentarians in Paris would like to feel that our deliberations had some small part in influencing the council to
230	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cannon include in its communique a reference to the cultural and economic aspects of the North Atlantic treaty.
The receptions given us by the French republic were very fine indeed, in the unique setting in which they were held, and that great country once more lived up to its reputation for gracious hospitality. I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express publicly the great appreciation of all the Canadian delegates for all the courtesies extended to us during our stay in Paris. I wish to underline the fact that the Speaker of the Senate, Hon. Wishart Robertson, took the initiative for these NATO parliamentary meetings, and that his contribution to them was recognized by the fact that he was elected chairman of the meeting in Paris, and also was elected president of the continuing committee to continue the work we started in Paris last summer.
From Paris we flew to Germany and visited the Canadian troop installations around Soesft in Westphalia. There I had the opportunity to meet the Royal 22nd regiment from Quebec city, where I live, and I had the occasion to renew old acquaintances with several of the officers and men, including the men in the Royal 22nd from the Magdalen islands. It was indeed a pleasure to see them and to say hello to them so far away from home. After that we visited the R.C.A.F. bases at Grostenquin and Marville in France and at Zweibrucken and Baden-Soellingen in Germany.
We all came back with a feeling of pride in the excellent work our soldiers and airmen are doing in participating in the NATO defence of Europe.
The so-called spirit of Geneva, which existed in Europe when we visited last summer, has disappeared rapidly, and it is important that all NATO countries be very careful not to allow themselves to be misled by any seeming softening of the Russian attitude into relaxing our vigilance or diminishing the strength of our NATO defensive organization.
To turn from foreign affairs to the domestic situation, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it was with great satisfaction and pride that the members of the house read in the weekly bulletins of the dominion bureau of statistics that all the main indications of the economic condition of our country have shown marked improvement over the same time last year. I refer in particular, Mr. Speaker, to the gross national product, to industrial employment, to manufacturing production, new orders in factories, housing construction, retail trade, total wages paid to labour forces, bank loans and car loadings. Every figure supplied shows an improvement over last year and there is no doubt that this country, under the wise


and firm guiding hand of this government, has reached a degree of prosperity never reached before.
It is a satisfaction also, Mr. Speaker, to note that this well-being and this increase in the national wealth has been accomplished without inflation. The cost of living is about the same as it was at this time a year ago. I have here, Mr. Speaker, some figures that should be of interest to the house that were given to me by the Department of Labour this afternoon, and they are the latest figures. They give an indication of the prosperity now existing in this country. The total labour force at this time in 1956 is 5,588,000. Last year at the same time it was 5,435,000, showing an increase in the labour force of 153,000. People with jobs-and there is a distinction there, because there are people who have jobs but do not work all the time-total
5,388,000	in 1956 against 5,187,000 in 1955, an increase of 201,000. People employed in 1956 total 5,237,000 against 5,082,000 in 1955, an increase of 155,000.
It would be amusing, Mr. Speaker, if I had the time to examine in detail the dire predictions of ruin and catastrophe made by the members of the opposition last year at just about this time. Unfortunately we have not the time to examine all of them but I cannot resist the temptation to take a look at a few. At page 23 of Hansard for last year the hon. member for Dufferin-Sim-coe (Mr. Rowe)-and I am sorry he is not here at the moment-attacked the government for having said in the speech from the throne that the unemployment existing at that time, a year ago, was regional and seasonal. At page 26 he accused the government of complacency and talked about the unemployed worrying and looking to the future with fear and uncertainty.
It has been proved, Mr. Speaker, that the government was right in saying that the unemployment which existed then was seasonal and regional. Seasonal unemployment in a country like ours is inevitable because of the climate; but it is a satisfaction to note, as I said a few minutes ago, that the total labour force employed has increased by
155,000,	and that the unemployed are at a much lower figure than they were last year at this time. The fiery hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who I am sorry to say is not here tonight, went off the deep end at page 150 of Hansard when referring to the statement in the speech from the throne that unemployment was of a regional and seasonal nature, when he said:
What a monstrous understatement, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder that what the speech from the throne proposes in the way of legislative and other

remedies is very fragmentary and of the nature that it is, based upon an approach so hopelessly lacking in realism to a national problem.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the statement in the speech from the throne last year, that unemployment was regional and seasonal, was not an understatement. It was a statement of fact and was a realistic approach to the situation which existed at that time. Experience has shown that the hon. member for Eglinton was just as wrong as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, and the government was right in its appreciation of the situation at that time.
The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach) also went out on a limb last year at just about this time. He said at page 2320 of Hansard:
I do not intend to re-examine the validity of all the figures which have been given by the able speakers who have taken part in this debate, but I do believe those figures indicate without doubt that unemployment in Canada is neither regional nor seasonal, as has been constantly stated by government spokesmen.
These hon. members, Mr. Speaker, if they reread this year the speeches they made last year at about the same time, must see that they made a big mistake and must feel rather silly in the light of what has actually happened since then. I wish I had the time to go on, Mr. Speaker, to give you other pearls from the speeches of the opposition members last year. Unfortunately time is lacking, but I think the quotations I have given to the house will show, and I repeat it, how wrong the opposition members were and how right the government was in appreciating the unemployment situation at this time last year.
I have received many complaints, Mr. Speaker, from my constituency concerning the effect and operation of one of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act adopted by this house at the last session of parliament. The speech from the throne last year said:
The government proposes to introduce legislation immediately for the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for an increase in the duration and scale of supplementary winter benefits. It is also proposing to introduce, during the session, broader amendments designed to make unemployment insurance a more effective instrument in providing financial support to unemployed workers.
In the speech from the throne this year, Mr. Speaker, we find another reference made to the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act:
The improvements you made to the Unemployment Insurance Act last year will provide a better coverage for those who are temporarily without work, particularly in the winter season.
I note particularly, Mr. Speaker, the words "designed to make unemployment insurance
The Address-Mr. Cannon a more effective instrument in providing financial support to unemployed workers". Unfortunately subsection 2 of section 45 of the new Unemployment Insurance Act has exactly the contrary effect. It decreases the efficiency of unemployment insurance in providing financial support to unemployed workers and provides less coverage for those who are out of work.
This is a section which says that when an insured person who has already drawn unemployment insurance benefits during an established benefit period makes a new application for unemployment insurance, he has to show that he has made contributions during 30 weeks within the last 52 weeks before his claim, that is to say during the preceding year.
Under the old act, people who did not work regularly could qualify for unemployment insurance by making 180 daily contributions during the two years immediately preceding the day their benefit period commenced, providing they had made contributions for at least 60 days during the last year before their claim, or for at least 45 days during the last 26 weeks before their claim. Under the new act, as above mentioned, an unemployed person must have worked and made contributions during 30 weeks out of the preceding 52.
I submit that this is too drastic a change, and as a result only one in ten of the workers of the Magdalen islands who applied last fall for unemployment insurance, and who usually got it, was able to obtain benefits this year. The reason is that the industries in the islands which are connected with the packing, freezing, smoking and salting of fish do not operate 30 weeks in one year. This was the cause of great hardship, and certainly does not help in providing financial support to unemployed workers as was forecast in the speech from the throne last year, nor in giving them better coverage, as is mentioned in this year's speech.
I suggest that the act be amended to lengthen the period in which the 30 weeks of contributions are to be made. This should be lengthened from one year to 18 months. Then if a worker applied for unemployment insurance on November 1, when most of the local plants are closed, he would have not only the immediately preceding summer season but also the summer season before that in which to find his 30 weeks of contributions.
Some of the people in the Magdalen islands who did not qualify for unemployment insurance last fall were able to qualify for seasonal benefits under section 49 and following of the act. However, these seasonal benefits only begin on January 1 and end on April 15. It has been a great hardship for many unemployed workers to be deprived of these

The Address-Mr. Cannon seasonal benefits during the Christmas season, and I suggest that the act should be amended further so that the seasonal benefits would begin on December 15 and end on April 1, instead of beginning on January 1 and ending on April 15. In that way the wives and little children of those people who are unemployed through no fault of their own would be given the opportunity of enjoying the Christmas season like the wives and children of others in the country.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the house to the recommendation made by the committee on industrial relations in its fourth report dated June 8, 1955. It recommended that the government study the advisability of extending unemployment insurance to fishermen who earn salaries and who work in other sections of the industry that could be put under the act.
I have mentioned this subject a great many times in this house, and I am coming back to it again. I underline the fact that it is most difficult for a member of parliament to explain to constituents who are fishermen why they cannot get unemployment insurance, when the people who pack and process their fish, who work in the plants on land, are able to get unemployment insurance. This anomaly should be corrected, and I hope we can count on the government correcting it as soon as it is humanly possible.
Before going on to another subject I should like to point out that these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act should be made at this session of parliament. If they are not made now but are postponed until the next session, which will probably begin only in January, 1957, next winter the unemployed workers and fishermen will find themselves in exactly the same position they are in this winter, and will have to suffer the same hardships.
Family allowances are one of the greatest measures of social security in our country. They have been ridiculed, even called baby bonuses at times. Nevertheless at this time all parties in this house, even the one headed by the Leader of the Opposition, who so firmly opposed them at first,- now recognize, in their public speeches at least, that they are an excellent thing, not only from the social point of view but from the economic point of view, because they put more money in circulation and add to the purchasing power of the people.
I know that some of our opponents are quite touchy at being reminded that at one time they were opposed to family allowances. I hope you will bear with me if I am unable to forgo the temptation of mentioning it

again. They rightly deserve it because of the attitude they took in the beginning. Our great leader, the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, was responsible for them and history will record that his decision to create family allowances was that of a great statesman.
But over ten years have gone by and family allowances have not been increased. As everyone knows, the cost of living has increased enormously during that time while the needs of children have not decreased. The means of meeting the needs of the children should be increased to keep pace with the cost of supplying them. On February 23, 1955, as reported at page 1436 of Hansard, I said:
This is what I said on January 19 last: "I say to the people of my county that when the time comes to increase family allowances the Liberal party will increase them. The Liberal party was the party that introduced family allowances in the first place, and it can be counted upon to increase them when the revenues and wealth of the country permit us to do so."
In case there should be any doubt on the subject, I categorically state that I am in favour of increasing family allowances as soon as practicable.


An hon. Member:: When is that?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: That is what you are going to find out. I am still of that opinion. I have received representations, both verbally and in writing, from my constituents to the effect that they think it is time family allowances were increased. These people point to the increase in the cost of living since 1945 and the fact that government income available for purposes other than war purposes has greatly increased since that time. I agree with them, and I make an appeal to the government to increase family allowances. If they cannot double them, as requested in some quarters, they should at least increase them 25 per cent or 50 per cent. If it is impossible for the government to increase family allowances all along the line they should-and this is the minimum they should do-at least increase the monthly allowances of $5, $6 or $7 for the younger children to the $8 given to the older children, so the same scale would apply to all. This modification would not only benefit the children but would greatly simplify the administration of the act.
Before leaving this subject I again urge the government most earnestly to enact legislation at this session of parliament to improve, as above outlined, these two great social security measures, unemployment insurance and family allowances.
Before I conclude I think it is only fitting that I should make reference to a visit by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada to the Magdalen islands last fall. He

came during September on the frigate Buckingham, and he visited the islands from one end to the other. I wish to express publicly in this house the great appreciation of the people of the Magdalen islands for the honour that was done to them by the visit of His Excellency to the islands, and especially in the way in which he visited them so completely, going to see all the people.
As we all know, His Excellency has many qualities, but there is one that I did not suspect before his visit to the islands. He is something of a poet, and before terminating my remarks I should like to put on Hansard the "Ode to the Saucy Sally" which was written by His Excellency. The Entry island referred to therein is the Entry island of the Magdalen islands. The ode is as follows:
On board the frigate Buckingham there hung a little craft
As nimble as a kayak, as buoyant as a raft;
The passengers admired her; travelled in her at each stop
And called her Saucy Sally with the fringe on top. For she carried very proudly a magnificent decor- A fringe she had amidships, and also aft and fore. The passengers adored it-what the actors call a "prop"-
And they loved the Saucy Sally with the fringe on top.
When we called at Entry island the wind grew even stronger,
And our journey to the jetty seemed long and getting longer.
We whispered soft as seas grew high and spirits took a drop-
What about it, Saucy Sally with the fringe on top? But she did her duty nobly and never let us down, Returned us to the Buckingham and how she went to town!
The waves she scorned superbly, with a jump and skip and hop-
So thank you, Saucy Sally with the fringe on top.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, had I been permitted to take part in this debate yesterday you probably would have found it necessary to call me to order because of the strong language I would have used, as I have rarely been more annoyed with a statement from someone representing the government than I was as I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I feel that two members of this cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for the marketing of wheat and has charge of the bureau of statistics, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is the only farmer in the cabinet, are performing a great disservice to Canada by failing to convey to their colleagues, to parliament and to the country the real problems confronting the farmers in all parts of Canada.
How different was the speech yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the speech that President Eisenhower presented to the congress in Washington a week
233
The Address

Mr. Nicholson ago today. President Eisenhower did not say, "No country is as prosperous as the United States." He did not say, "Our farmers have more money in the bank, more wheat in the granary, more food in conservation, than any other country in the world." This is what President Eisenhower said:
In this session no problem before the congress demands more urgent attention than the paradox facing our farm families. Although agriculture is our basic industry, they find their prices and incomes depressed amid the nation's greatest prosperity. For five years their economy has declined. Unless corrected, these economic reversals are a direct threat to the well-being of all our people.
But more than prices and incomes are involved. In America agriculture is more than an industry; it is a way of life. Throughout our history the family farm has given strength and vitality to our entire social order. We must keep it healthy and vigorous.
Yet the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have created the impression in this house and abroad that the Canadian farmers are sitting pretty. The Minister of Trade and Commerce raised that old bogey, the abolition of the wheat board. No member of any party in this parliament has suggested that the wheat board should be abolished. Certainly members of my party have been keen supporters of the wheat board when the Liberals were dragging their feet, but to suggest that well-known newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Press or the Financial Post are campaigning to dispose of the wheat board is nonsense. I am not going to take time to defend the Winnipeg Free Press; its editorial writers will be able to do that. But I should like to draw the minister's attention to the weekly letters of the Searle Grain Company Limited. This company, which one would normally expect to be sniping at the wheat board and anxious to get back to the open market, is very careful in its weekly comments regarding the situation. The leading article in the letter of 11th January states:
The proposed move is of interest because it reflects a partial recognition of the increasingly difficult position in which the farmers of western Canada have found themselves as a result of the marketing problems that have arisen. Because of the sacrifices which farmers have made in the past we have consistently maintained in these columns that sooner or later an appraisal would have to be made of the farmer's position in relation to the whole national economy and that, if it appeared justified, extreme measures of one sort or another might eventually have to be taken to ensure him of a more secure place in the scheme of things.
The same letter refers to another serious problem which we must not ignore, that at the Toronto royal winter fair, Koga II wheat, a new variety developed in Germany, placed 18th in competition with many Canadian hard red spring wheats. It was also pointed out

The Address-Mr. Nicholson that two other English varieties entered in this class placed 21st and 25th respectively.
The fact that the Searle Grain Company is recognizing these important international developments and is not saying a word about the problem that confronts Canadian farmers resulting from the fact that we have a wheat board, shows how ridiculous are the suggestions made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other Liberal members from the west who have not enough courage to stand up in parliament and perform their duty to their constituents by pointing out that the people who sent them here are not getting their fair share of the national income.
I turn now to what the minister tells us about net income for the years 1951 to 1954. He tells us in one of his publications that the accrued net income of farm operators from farm production has declined from $2,750 million in 1951 to $1,851 million in 1952, $1,653 million in 1953 and $1,054 million in 1954. How could the minister stand up here yesterday and fail to recognize this situation? If it were not for the fact that all the other sectors of the Canadian economy are experiencing an all-time boom, our Canadian farmers might accept the fact that we in Canada were destined to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. But the dominion bureau of statistics weekly bulletins, also published by the Minister of Trade and Commerce's department, turn up week after week with annoying information. Here is October 14:
Corporation Profits: Second quarter profits before income taxes of corporations in Canada were an estimated 22-6 per cent larger this year than in 1954.
The department store sales were at an alltime high. Chain store sales, manufacturing and all the other sectors of the Canadian economy were at an all-time high.
Naturally I am chiefly concerned about what is happening in the wheat-producing parts of Canada. While farm income in all parts of Canada has been declining, the reduction in farm income in the prairie regions has been staggering. Again taking figures from the minister's own department, we find that in the province of Saskatchewan net farm income dropped from $565 million in 1952 to $126 million in 1954.
It is not easy to know exactly what percentage of the Canadian people are classified as farmers. In provinces like Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, where some people spend part of their time farming and part of their time fishing or working in industry, one cannot determine exactly, but we -accept the fact that roughly 20 per cent of the Canadian
fMr. Nicholson.]

people derive their livelihood from farming. As long as I can remember, everyone in public life who has sought support has emphasized the fact that the farmers are the salt of the earth, but when it comes to giving them their share of the national income that is a different matter.
I am indebted to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) for the information he gives us regarding the distribution of the national income to groups on the basis of profession. These figures do not give a complete and accurate picture, but they do tell us what sort of incomes the people who pay income tax have. Since over 80 per cent of the farmers of Canada have never had enough money to pay any income tax, naturally the Minister of National Revenue has no information regarding how little these unfortunate Canadians are getting. However, the figures I have indicate that medical doctors top the list with an average of $11,258 each, according to the information they furnish the income tax authorities. Consulting engineers and architects are next. I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be in this category if he were working for a living. The figure for them is $10,289. Lawyers slipped a little bit. If they had been able to work another half hour in the year they would have brought their incomes up to the $10,000 mark, but as it was they were about $50 short of reaching that figure.
But farmers are away down the list. Those farmers who were fortunate enough to be able to pay income tax earned an average of $3,869. With respect to the division of the national income among the different classes of people in the country, it is not realized by the farmers nor the people generally that in 1954 our farmers were getting a smaller percentage of the national income than they were immediately before world war II began. If one takes the whole period from 1930 to 1939 the farmers' share of the national income was 6-1 per cent. We have a great deal of sympathy for the people who lived through the hungry thirties. We knew something about the 3 cents a dozen for eggs, 10 cents a pound for butter and a nickel a pound for beef and pork. While these prices prevailed the farmers received 6 * 1 per cent of the national income.
If you go back to 1931 you find that the farmers' share was down to 2 [DOT] 9 per cent. It picked up the next year to 4-1 per cent, but then dropped back to 3 per cent. Twenty per cent of the people received 3 per cent of the national income in that year. In 1954 farmers in all parts of Canada got 5 [DOT] 6 per cent of the national income. No minister of

trade and commerce, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for the statistical information compiled by a government, is doing his duty when he speaks on a controversial question such as the minister discussed yesterday and completely ignores the fact that in all of Canada in the last year for which statistics are available, 20 per cent of the people only received 5-6 per cent of the national income.
Although most of my remarks are going to be devoted to wheat, I am sure that hon. members who represent farmers in all parts of Canada would not dare to take the Minister of Trade and Commerce back to their constituents and permit him to make a political speech in their support suggesting, as he did yesterday, that the only thing wrong with the farmers of Canada is that there are certain C.C.F. people who are agitating and talking about facts that are unreal. Certainly the people in Ontario and Quebec are not going to blame the C.C.F. for the disastrously low prices they are receiving for what they sell and the very high prices they pay for the things they buy.
A few days before I came here I saw one of the farmers in my constituency. He is a man who has acted on the advice of the Minister of Agriculture. He has put some of his grain on the market by feeding it to cattle. He has one of the best herds of cattle to be found anywhere in the country. On December 27 last, between Christmas and New Year's day, he received for choice steers, young cattle not yet two years old, 14 cents, 13J cents, 13J cents, 13J cents, with a top price of 14$ cents a pound. These cattle were all bought by Canada Packers or Burns. The farmer registered his protest with one of the buyers, and the buyer said, "You are mighty lucky you are selling these cattle at these prices. If you had held off until spring and fed them you might be lucky if you got 10 cents."
This was probably just a comment made by the buyer, who has no more information than anyone else about the matter, but he did convince the farmer that possibly there might be a worse price. But the farmers know that while they are caught in this price squeeze, with their prices going down and their costs going up, others in Canada, as I have indicated, are having a very good time.
I mentioned the fact that corporation profits are going up. The Financial Post survey of industrials and mines gives us some information regarding how some of Canada's big corporations have been faring during the period between 1946 and 1954. I will not mention all of them. One of them, the British American Oil Company, trusts me with a credit card. I usually buy "co-op" gas when
235
The Address-Mr. Nicholson I am in my own home town, but in travelling around I buy British American gas where "co-op" gas is not available. Therefore I am interested in the profits they are making. Between 1946 and 1954 their net profits after taxes jumped from $3-3 million to $18-1 million, which would appear to be an increase of 410 per cent.
The Steel Company of Canada, which depends to a very large extent on farm machinery for part of its sales, had an increase in net profits after taxes of 440 per cent. Then I come to the Industrial Acceptance Corporation, and it would appear that credit buying in Canada is really paying off for this type of company. Their net profits increased by 2,602 per cent. Loblaw Groceterias apparently found that it is much more profitable to sell vegetables than to grow them. Their profits increased by 306 per cent. Traders Finance net profits increased by 801 per cent, and the profits of the Hudson's Bay Company, which has been doing a land office business in the northern part of my constituency for about 300 years, increased by 478 per cent.
Dominion Stores are advertising today that side bacon can be bought in Ottawa at 27 cents a pound. I do not know how the farmers of Canada can be expected to produce pork when the finished product, side bacon, is sold at 27 cents a pound. This company's profits increased from 1946 to 1954 by 733 per cent.
If it were not for the fact that every conceivable type of corporation in Canada has had a most prosperous period during and since the war, probably our farm population would not be so greatly dissatisfied. But I am sure that in every province in the country the fact that this diminishing share of the national income is going to the farmer is the fact that is driving so many people off the farms and to the cities.
In the small community in which I live we have a composite school that this year has 360 students registered. The principal tells me that he does not know of any of the girls who are looking forward to marrying farmers and living on farms, and that he knows of only three boys who are counting on returning to the farm eventually. I am sure no one can suggest that this school was not established there in the hope that many of these young people would not have to go to the cities to take their high school work, but by being able to stay home at night or by going home for the week end they would keep up their interest in the local farms. But they realize that their parents and their grandparents who have lived on the farm have

The Address-Mr. Nicholson lived in all periods in a situation where they did not get a fair share of the national income for what they produced.
Another serious defect in the minister's statement of yesterday is this. He failed to recognize the fact that price is such an important factor in the present situation. While in my opinion Canada is the best country in the world that I know of, and while our farmers are the best people in the country as far as I can see, I cannot understand why any cabinet minister should boast of the fact that in no country in the world do the producers have to sell their wheat for as low a price as do those in Canada.
I have a criticism to make of both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Agriculture has a vote for "Agriculture Abroad" which he gets through parliament every year. In this issue there is a discussion on agricultural developments in Australia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. But in the discussion of agricultural policies in each of those countries the minister's officials carefully refrain from pointing out the wide difference in the prices paid to the farmers in those countries compared with the prices paid to the farmers in Canada.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also publishes a bulletin entitled "The Wheat Review" which regularly contains information with regard to agricultural conditions in other countries. This one has a discussion of agriculture in Uruguay, Argentina, Australia and France. It so happens that I also get from Washington regular bulletins entitled "Foreign Agricultural Circular", and I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that they could perform a real service by scrapping "The Wheat Review" and "Agriculture Abroad" and merely asking Washington to supply them with information as to what is done.
I will not have time to deal with what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say about Uruguay, but I think the Canadian people should have the information in this bulletin that Washington puts out with regard to wheat farming in Uruguay. First of all it points out that before the war Uruguay exported a small quantity of wheat but that as a result of their policies, Uruguay's exports are now 23 million bushels. It is true that is not as large an amount as we are exporting; but the fact that in 10 years' time one country increased its exports ten times suggests that we should pay a little bit of attention to it.

In Uruguay the farmers start out with a price of $2.51 a bushel. Those who are unable to deliver their grain at the beginning of the season have the price go up month by month until at the end of the crop year the price is $2.72 a bushel. In other words the farmer who holds his grain on the farm for a year has an extra 21 cents a bushel for storing his grain. In addition to that, the farmer in Uruguay has been paid 18 pesos per hectare for every hectare he puts into wheat, and this is very conveniently translated into dollars and acres. The Uruguay farmer is paid $4.80 per acre.
What a contrast there is between this amount and the pittance the Minister of Agriculture, under the P.F.A.A. legislation, did not give many farmers who did not get a crop last year. In Uruguay $4.80 an acre is paid for the first 494 acres. As to the big farmer, the farmer who has over 500 hectares or 1,236 acres, he does not get anything. The smaller farmer, however, gets $4.80 per acre for the first 494 acres. For the difference between 494 and 1,236 acres he does not get anything.
I ask this question of the Minister of Agriculture, who is kind enough to be following me carefully. How can the farmers in the Melville area, with present prices, hope to compete in the world market with wheat that is produced on land that carries with it a subsidy of $4.80 an acre, and when the government of Uruguay is bridging the difference between what the farmer is paid and what is received in the foreign market?
The Minister of Agriculture devotes a section to France, but I suggest that he compare what his officials say about wheat in France with what Washington says about wheat in France. Washington points out that the support level for 1955-56 is about the same as it was a year ago. It is $2.64 a bushel for some of the softer varieties and $3.04 per bushel for the Durum or hard wheat. Here is some information that the minister's department carefully avoided putting in the publication. France has been subsidizing her exports. In 1955 France will probably come close to replacing Australia as one of the principal exporters.
For the 1954 crop, marketed in 1954-55, the total export subsidy payments are estimated at 41'8 billion francs ($119,543,000). The quantity of wheat and flour exported under subsidy that year is estimated at 2,015,000 metric tons (74,028,000 bushels) grain equivalent. Hence, the average subsidy cost for the crop was 2,076 francs per quintal ($1.61 per bushel).
This is not all taken out of the treasury, I should explain. This report from Washington explains that the farmers themselves contribute 54 cents a bushel, while the

French government contributes $1.07, making a total of $1.61 a bushel. That partly explains why it is that France, once a country that imported a good deal of wheat and where for quite some time imports and exports balanced, is pushing Australia for fifth place. The exports of France increased from 40-2 million bushels in 1953-54 to 87-9 million in 1954-55, almost double.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce very carefully refraine'd from pointing out that last year the United States replaced Canada as the principal exporter. Perhaps hon. members would be interested in this little table showing the exports from the United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia and France last year and the year before. The United States increased from 211-4 million to 276-5 million. Canada dropped from 255-1 million to 251-8 million. Argentina increased from 110-3 million to 134-5 million. Australia increased from 63 * 4 million to 94-2 million and, as I said, France increased from 40-2 million to 87-9 million. The estimates this year are that France will increase her exports to 91-9 million.
I realize the problem that is posed when countries which support one section of their economy are prepared to subsidize to the extent that France has done. My time is running out, and I shall not be able to refer to what they are doing in the United States, but it has been mentioned in the house so often that hon. members in all sections will realize that the United States has been following a very generous policy in dealing with their own farmers.
In spite of efforts in that direction, President Eisenhower brought a message to congress asking support for a soil bank and for disposal of surplus corn, cotton, rice, when this very important sector of the people of the United States is unable to get its fair share of the national income, and that in turn is having a disastrous effect on their whole economy.
Before I conclude I wish to suggest that the proposal made by my leader is very reasonable. The amendment before the house, together with our subamendment, now reads:
We respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of their indifference, inertia and lack of leadership in the face of serious national problems, including their failure to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain, equal to not less than 75 per cent of the initial price, to alleviate the serious financial crisis now confronting western farmers and the entire economy of the prairie provinces, and their disregard for the rights of parliament, are not entitled to the confidence of this house.
My leader and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) have made reference to accepting soft currencies and sterling and
The Address-Mr. Nicholson barter. I should like to refer very briefly to the Polish deal. Apart from the blast from the Leader of the Opposition last year when this deal was announced, I have not heard any criticism in parliament or out of parliament regarding this deal. I understand that Poland is going to be in the market for from 50 to 60 million bushels of wheat each year for the next ten years. I understand that Poland has found Canadian wheat to be excellent. It blends very well with their wheat, and I understand that Poland is anxious to do business with Canada. But this business can only be done if we will accept from Poland some of the goods they make and want to sell.
If Poland had access to a lot of gold they probably would supply gold. Canada is prepared to spend $16 million to get a lot of gold from a hole in the ground up in the north and have it put in a hole in the ground down in the hills of Kentucky. But so far we are unwilling to risk more than 4 cents a bushel on last year's wheat crop, with nothing for the oats, barley, rye and other commodities. It is time the Canadian government agreed to set up an import board that would work in co-operation with the wheat board.
The wheat board is charged with the business of selling, but we have no organization in Canada that is facing the situation resulting from the Polish deal, for instance, with a view to getting goods from Poland into Canada without disrupting our Canadian economy. This job can be done. It is a real reflection on our society when we permit 20 per cent of the Canadian people to be placed in the position that their share of the national income is diminishing year by year and we are not making a real effort to increase our production and see that it gets abroad.
Members of this group have frequently referred to the fact that two-thirds of the world's people never get enough to eat. From Rome each month I get the FAO news letters which deal with some of the problems that are being faced by our international organizations on which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been working so hard. May I say we are very pleased that the minister made such a valuable contribution to the deliberations of the last general assembly of the United Nations; but I cannot understand why he sat there and saw the budget for FAO slashed as it has been.
The director general offered his resignation because the budget was being reduced from $7 million to $6-4 million for an international organization that is charged with the job of

The Address-Mr. Villeneuve organizing the world's production and distribution of food. They have had their budget cut by $600,000, and during the closing days of our last session the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his other capacity as Minister of Defence Production told us that when the air force asked for a new type of plane, although it cost $122 million, there was no problem about finding sufficient Canadian funds to embark on that new type of plane.
I submit that with so many hungry people in the world the government of Canada should be giving real leadership in seeing that maximum production is maintained in Canada, that our own people here have all the foodstuffs they can eat and that our surplus is sold, bartered or given away to relieve hunger in areas where people have never had sufficient to eat.
(Translation) :


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on going through the newly revised edition of our Standing Orders for 1955, I have once again been able to realize how uncommonly much we owe to your ability and devotion to duty. During the two years you have held office you have managed to popularize these standing orders which had been all but incomprehensible to mere laymen. You will permit me to say that, along *with some of your predecessors, you will go down in the parliamentary history of this country. Your tact and fairness, together with your perfect knowledge of the two official languages of this country, justify this unanimous tribute from the members of the house, whatever their political persuasion.
The present session began auspiciously with the speech of the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), the first woman on whom such an honour has been bestowed since confederation, and also with the remarks of the hori. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laflamme) whom I could well call the representative of youth. To both of them I offer my most sincere congratulations and I hope that in the future they will continue to make worthy contributions to the debates of the house.
I hope that the six newly elected members who have taken their seat among us for the first time will prove an asset to the house and to their respective constituencies. Since I have had the honour of taking part in the electoral campaign of my hon. friend the new member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent), I would like to congratulate him for the honest and sincere manner in which he obtained his mandate; I had reason to
IMr. Nicholson.]
repeat to his electors the following saying: "Blood will tell".
' I would also like to draw attention to the special contribution, during the recess, of three members of the cabinet in making Canada better known abroad, namely the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) during his trip to Russia, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) during his trip to Russia and in the East and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who, as leader of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, achieved an almost impossible feat when he succeeded in obtaining the "package deal" admission of 16 nations to that organization. Canada, which does not rank among the major nations of the world, must act as a peacemaker in the world if we want our nation to become worthy, in the international field, of the message given to the shepherds of Bethlehem:	"Peace on
earth to men of good will".
I appreciated the appointment of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) as a successor to the late postmaster general, the Hon. Alcide Cote. The latter had greatly helped me in the task which had been entrusted to me by my electors, who were requesting improved postal service. I have no doubt that the new minister will be just as sympathetic. I dare hope that the appointment of the new minister will coincide with a greater generosity on the part of his department, especially for the rural mail carriers and postmasters.
The constituency of Roberval which I represent in this house has received some outstanding visitors in the year 1955, that is the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Kirk) to the Postmaster General, the parliamentary assistant (Mr. Bourget) to the Minister of Public Works on the occasion of the official opening of the federal public building in Roberval, in March, as well as the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) at the official opening of the Roberval airport in November. To these hon. colleagues, I express my appreciation and that of my electors for their kindness in honouring us with their presence in our district which, I believe, is most attractive and hospitable. I do hope they will come back and that the pleasant memory they have of their sojourn among us will entice other members of parliament, parliamentary assistants and ministers to visit the riding of Roberval and its friendly people.

The unprecedented economic expansion of 1955 in Canada could not but have its effects on the constituency of Roberval.
I am therefore glad to see that in 1955 the federal government has really contributed to the progress of my constituency. I will restrict myself to the following works made possible by generous grants from the Department of Agriculture: the agriculture building in Roberval, the central cheese and butter factory of La Dore, the central cheese and butter factory of St. Methode, the Bherer cheese and butter factory of St. Felicien; and, thanks to the Department of Public Works: the completion of the federal public building in Roberval, further work on the breakwater at Roberval, the completion of a dock at St. Prime and the awarding of a construction contract for the federal public building in Dolbeau. But the most important contribution to our local economy is definitely the beginning of the construction work of a 139-mile railroad connecting Chibougamau and St. Felicien, at an estimated cost of $17 million. In addition to bringing employment to our workers and putting an unprecedented amount of money in circulation, this work will endow my constituency not only with a long railroad in a northerly direction but, what is more important, with a brilliant future. When the hon. Minister of Transport came to Roberval, he certainly did not miss the opportunity to point out that my electors were very appreciative of the government's wise decision to connect Abitibi and Lake St. John, through Chibougamau, the great economic attraction at this time, in our province. I trust their testimony, together with that of their representative, will constitute the best expression of their gratitude to those who took this progressive decision. That is why my electors, more than ever, are glad to have put their confidence in this government. If my representations in the future are given as much sympathetic consideration as in the past, this confidence will inevitably become unshakable.
A young and lively constituency like the one I represent in this house can hardly leave any respite to its representative and, therefore, this representative still has many requests to submit to the government. As a good parish priest of my district said- "One must thank and one must ask relentlessly; it is the best way to have one's prayers answered."
On December 10 last, the people of Roberval constituency learned the sad news of the death of its representative in the
The Address-Mr. Villeneuve Quebec legislative assembly, Mr. Antoine Marcotte. To his widow, to the members of his family and to all his friends I extend my sympathy in my capacity as member of the same riding in the House of Commons of Canada.
So young a district cannot but naturally look forward to adolescence. It is thus that in 1954 we celebrated our first centenary, that of Roberval. Hardly two years have passed and, in this summer of 1956, we shall celebrate another centenary, that of the establishment of the Montagnais Indian reserve of Poinite Bleue. As its- name indicates, this reserve is located on a wide point of land heading towards lake St. John between St. Prime and Roberval. A law enacted under the union and assented to on August 30, 1851, Statutes 14-15 Victoria, chapter 106, authorized the government to survey the lands which were to be allocated to Indians. Thus in 1853 the government granted the Montagnais of my district a reserve of 16,000 acres on the shores of the Peribonka river, and another one of 4,000 acres on the shores of the Metabetchouan river, where a fur trading post and a mission had been established more than two centuries before. During the summer of 1856, the Montagnais Indian tribe of the Saguenay made a petition to the executive council of Upper and Lower Canada, submitted by Mr. David E. Price, M.P., requesting an exchange of the lands granted on the Peribonka and Metabetchouan rivers for another piece covering an area of six square miles on the shores of lake St. John at the place now known as Pointe Bleue. The exchange, approved by the crown lands department on July 25, 1856, was agreed upon by an order in council dated September 4 of the same year and ratified by the governor general on September 6, 1856. On that historical date, the present Pointe Bleue reserve was born. I must give credit to the historian of our district, Canon Victor Tremblay, for these brief notes on the history of Pointe Bleue.
Therefore, that reserve was formed at a time when colonization began in the lake St. John district. The Montagnais Indians and the French people of that district had been friends for a long time, since on May 27, 1603, the chief of the tribe, Anadabijou, had signed with Samuel de Champlain at Pointe-aux-Alouettes, opposite Tadoussac, the first official act granting to European people the right to settle on the lands of this country. In that treaty, the first occupants of the soil invited the newcomers to "settle the land and fight their enemies." In the years that followed the French remained friendly

The Address-Mr. Villeneuve with the Montagnais tribe and saved them from extermination when they were attacked by Iroquois hordes which were driven away with the help of a French contingent rushed by Governor Denonville, towards the end of the seventeenth century. The battle is said to have been waged on the shores of a river still called today "Riviere-aux-Iroquois" which crosses the municipality of St. Prime where, I am happy to say, I was born.
The population of the Montagnais Indian reservation at Pointe Bleue is now some 1,125 people, representing 200 families of which 110 are sedentary and 90 are nomadic. The hunting grounds are getting poorer each year and the slump in furs has made it necessary for most of these Indians to try and make a living at manual labour as craftsmen, labourers and even farmers, which is for them a sort of unnatural adaptation and adjustment, but in which they excel.
The Pointe Bleue Indians value the land which makes up their reservation and which was parceled out in the past but which I undertake to safeguard for them as long as I shall be their member, even though at the present time they do not have the right to vote, a right they do not seem anxious to get.
Since becoming member for Roberval, I have been requesting certain improvements for the Pointe Bleue reservation, particularly the construction of a residential or boarding school for the children of nomadic Indians. During the school year 1954-55, of the school age children at Pointe Bleue 74 out of 272 received no schooling whatever because of the fact that as their parents were roaming the woods these children could attend no classes, there being no boarding school on the spot. In order to adapt themselves to their new living conditions and to carry out their struggle for existence with adequate hopes of success, these young Indians need education. I would even say that it is a vital necessity as far as they are concerned if they are to play their proper part and develop as they should, and not be forever in a position of inferiority.
While I am on that subject I would call the attention of the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs to the sad state of disrepair of the road through this reservation, both in the direction of Roberval and in that of St. Prime. This road is little better than a path. It must quite closely approximate its appearance of fifty years ago with its right angled curves, its level crossings, its near proverbial narrowness and clouds of dust.


Not only do I find the state of this road intolerable with regard to modern needs, but I also take it to be a disgrace as far as the federal government is concerned. In the whole of my county and even throughout the four counties of the district concerned, its only jurisdiction in the matter of roads is in relation to this road through the reservation. An ever-increasing number of these Indians have taken up haulage by truck. One of them even runs a bus service between Pointe Bleue and Roberval. A large number of tourists like to come to this reservation in the search for novel attractions. Besides, normal traffic on the road is sufficiently heavy for the department concerned to realize the urgent necessity of proceeding without delay to the rebuilding of this road which is a disgrace to the federal government.
The Indians of Pointe Bleue request a good asphalt road to connect their reservation with local highway 55 leading to St. Prime and Roberval. I find this request reasonable and I bring it to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) whose progressive mind is well known to me. I am sure he will give this request his sympathetic attention.
As a centenary should be marked by public festivities and celebrations, a committee was created a few months ago in order to celebrate in a particularly original way the centenary of the Montagnais Indian reservation of Pointe Bleue. For this occasion, the Montagnais Indians have in store for us a special program of unprecedented originality which will be a tourist attraction in the area. As a token of consideration for these first inhabitants of the country, I renew the invitation which I was requested to make to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who presides over Indian affairs, and to his deputy minister, (Mr. Laval Fortier), in order that their presence may enhance the grandiose celebrations of the centenary of the Indian reservation of Pointe Bleue. The first reply made by the minister did honour me and I trust that he will take advantage of his stay in Pointe Bleue to lay the cornerstone of the future boarding school, the construction of which I have so much at heart. I can assure the minister of a more than friendly reception in Pointe Bleue as well as in the other localities of the beautiful Roberval constituency.
I should now like to broach a rather delicate matter and that is the question of the name of the future hotel which the Canadian National Railways are now building in Montreal, close to the Central station. A large

number of my electors have requested that X express my opinion on this matter and I believe I can do so without hurting anyone's feelings.
I know that the permission of Her Majesty was originally obtained to name that hotel the Queen Elizabeth hotel. Later on a petition signed by 200,000 people, some of them very prominent people, was tabled in this house by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets). These petitioners asked that the hotel be called the "Chateau Maisonneuve", in memory of the founder of Montreal. In time the question was taken up by the newspapers and everybody could realize, even in the English language papers of Montreal and Toronto, that the petition was logical because it was based on historical facts. Everybody knows the loyalty of the French Canadians to Her Majesty and her predecessors, and it would be unfair to say that this is a move against the British crown, which is also the Canadian crown under our common allegiance. Besides there is in Montreal the "Windsor" hotel, another one which is called "Queens" and a theatre which is named "Her Majesty's", and I do not know of any boycotting of these establishments on account of their names. The problem is not there to be sure; it comes from the fact that the origin of Montreal is French; that the metropolis is the second-largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris, on the strength of its population; that, being the metropolis of Canada, Montreal is part of the French province of Quebec; that Paul Chomedy de Maisonneuve founded this city heroically in 1642, stating to the French governor of Quebec at the time: "Even if all the trees on Montreal island were to change into Iroquois, I would not give up my plans"; that it is fitting to maintain the French character of Montreal and that this future hotel, which because of its size will be able to accommodate visitors from all over the world, would, to my mind, serve this legitimate end if it bore the name of Maisonneuve, a truly historic name, which indeed deserves to adorn a public building of this kind.
I know that it is up to the directors of the national railways to settle this matter, and I trust that, if they put their minds to it, they will find the right way to bring even Her Majesty to decide in favour of the petition tabled in the house. I had the privilege to highly appreciate the spirit of understanding of the present chairman of the Canadian
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, last summer when I appealed to him on behalf of the people of La Dore, who wanted to have the station site moved nearer to the village-at a distance of 1J miles-whereas the proposed site was 3} miles away from it. I again want to express my appreciation to Mr. Gordon, and I trust that he will show the same spirit of co-operation, in order to satisfy the people of the province of Quebec in particular, a considerable proportion of whom have expressed their views upon the subject in the above-mentioned petition. I also venture to say that being aware of the loyalty of her Frenchspeaking subjects, Her Majesty will accept the name suggested in this petition.
(.Text):
In conclusion I want to congratulate the increasing number of hon. members of this house who try to speak my mother tongue, one of the two official languages of this country. I see in that fact a growing trend toward the national unity preached by Sir Wilfrid Laurier fifty years ago.
I am told that the University of British Columbia has recently opened a school of French language for its students. I was delighted to hear my friend the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) speak in this house recently in French about national unity through a better knowledge of the two official languages of our country. I know many other members in every political group who are beginning to speak French well. I think we all can testify that the future of Canada will be a good one because Canadians in every province are thinking of themselves primarily as Canadians with loyalty to Canada as a whole.


Mr. John B. Hamilion (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I think I arise tonight with as much trepidation as I did on the occasion of my first speech in this house. I am not sure whether the whip of my party moved me to my present position as a trial by fire as in ancient days, or whether because of my efforts with regard to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act I have been appointed parliamentary assistant to my good friend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Simmons). In any case, though I was never in any doubt before, I am sure I can count on the support of those great free thinkers, those exponents of political fair play, the Liberals to your left, Mr. Speaker.

The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton
If there is a precedent in this debate for speaking at great length about the wonderful characteristics of the constituencies from which we come, then tonight I want to break precedent. My constituents know that I feel I represent the finest people and the finest district in this great dominion; and, if they did not, I assume I would not be here. No; I think my constituents will be quite satisfied if I speak about their problems only as problems which affect all of this great country.
Everywhere we turn today we hear people discussing in one form or another the role of government in our democratic system. This is not merely a topic for college professors, students of history or businessmen. It is even discussed by union leaders and union members as well. Each group has its own ideas, but there seems to be no hard and fast definition of the government's function.
To me, here in Canada we seem to have lost sight of the fact that government and business may be separated and still have the government fulfil its role of ensuring the continued general welfare of its people. As businessmen we demand the right to conduct our own affairs without restriction but, at the least sign that we may get hurt, we demand that the government move in and enact some new type of guarantee or impose some new restrictive control. As labour leaders we demand that we have no restriction on our right to bargain or our right to strike but, when things do not go right, we ask the government to move in and tell the boss what he should do.
Let us be quite frank. If these courses were pursued to their ultimate conclusion, then the government would end up by running everything, business and labour alike, because there never has been a treasury bench so prepared to move into new fields of power under the protective umbrella of unprecedented prosperity. The freedom of the individual is disappearing at an accelerating rate. Some day we shall awake to find that not creeping socialism but galloping socialism has brought us a nationalist socialist state. Let us not look for excuses. We can see the evidence everywhere. This government is not going to be satisfied until it finds itself in every phase of business. For them it is a natural evolution conceived during a period of national emergency and now carried forward quietly while our people do not know what is happening.
[Mr. Hamilton (York West).!
Someone may say this sounds very much like the echo of last year's defence production debate. Perhaps it does, but I do not think I need to apologize for that, because only the other day I listened to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) complain because he had not been given the powers he wanted to have last year. The salient feature is that the government, by moving into business, can attain the same type of control of business as it can by restrictive legislation.
Let us get the government out of business. Let us see it perform its true role of attending to the general welfare of the people. Business-and when I say "business" I mean every part of it, management and labour- cannot expect fair play if its competitor is also its regulator.
We have plenty of examples. Last year, in speaking on the estimates of the Department of Transport, as shown on page 6497 of Hansard, I used these words:
In its creation the air transport board gave every indication of being a desirable means of or agency for controlling the growth of the industry throughout the whole country. But in recent years it would appear that it no longer can be considered an impartial agency in connection with these decisions. I think most of our trouble has resulted from a hidebound adherence to a policy of monopoly at the top.
This tendency, of course, was exemplified most clearly in the decision approximately two and a half years ago in the Canadian Pacific Air Lines-Trans-Canada Air Lines air freight case which was heard by the air transport board. This decision appears to have closed the door to any hope of competition on the national level. Its reverberations have been felt right down through the industry to the lowliest class 4 group "C" charter air operator.
Later on I said:
What has been the result? This country has waited two years to obtain a transcontinental air freight system. There is ample proof of that fact. It was two and a half years ago that the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines was heard. But in the Montreal Gazette of April 25, 1955, there is this announcement in large type: "T.C.A. to start cargo service to west coast." I would ask hon. members, is that the way business expands in this country? Under our system of commercial enterprise should we not expect that business will go out and create a situation where it can make money under the competitive circumstances which exist in all other phases of our national life? No; we waited for the same service we might have had two years ago.
As found on the same page I said:
The second result of this decision has been the placing of a lid on the air transport business from one end of the country to the other, from the highest level to the lowest, because it is obvious that unless there is room for expansion at the top there can be no hope for smaller operators to expand in their field as well.
Third, and I think I should be able to say this, it seems that it has even placed the employees

of the national air line in a position where they feel that their job security depends upon the continuance of a monopolistic situation, whereas truthfully I am quite sure they would all be better off and would have a better opportunity for advancement if true competitive conditions existed.
But as I pointed out at that time, Mr. Speaker, it did have one beneficial result. The same application for a competitive licence reduced air freight rates in Canada, and that fact cannot be contradicted. Here is the first example of the government acting with its left hand as competitor and with its right hand as regulator.
Since I spoke in the house last year on this subject I have listened to many people speak both inside the house and outside, but there appears to be no general change in the situation. Pacific Western Airlines applied for an air bus licence to carry passenger traffic on a transcontinental basis, but that application has recently been denied. It seems to me that simply to allow competition will not solve the whole problem. I think it is necessary that competition should be allowed in the first instance, but at the same time I believe that the government should get out of the air transport business and get out of it before it is too late.
I do not suggest that the government get out of it before a competitive licence is granted, because if that should be done then I am sure any purchaser might expect a continuation of monopoly conditions. The first step is competition, and the second is for the government to get out of the business.
At the present time a commission is investigating the serious problem of raising revenue for our national broadcasting system, and I am sure the Minister of National Revenue has plenty of worries in that respect. Here too is a situation where the government acts on the one hand as competitor and on the other hand as regulator. It appears to me that the same solution might be advocated in this case as well. It would seem that there is no reason why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not dispose of its physical properties in radio and television stations to private enterprise. Its production facilities, its job of regulation, could still be carried on. I have great admiration for some of the production facilities. There is no reason why they should go out of that phase of the business. They could ensure that the necessary number of hours are devoted on all stations to the type of programs which such an agency as a Canada Council might suggest as being proper and fit for Canadians. But it does not need to own the physical properties which it possesses. I suggest that many of the government's financial worries in connection with its operation would be removed if such a program were initiated.
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton
I have read about a third example just recently. The Minister of Defence Production has told of plans for the expansion of the Polymer Corporation. Here is an institution, also conceived in a time of national emergency, for which we now have great plans of expansion. I see no reason why Canadian business enterprise could not carry on such a business. I say to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), whose chief concern in connection with that corporation I believe is the worry that foreign capital may be brought into Canada to take it over, that I am quite sure that within the confines of this country there is the business initiative and capital to ensure that, run by private enterprise, it is also owned here as well.
The other day I read of another example of the government in business. In the Globe and Mail of September 19 there was an article about the great plans of the Bank of Canada for the construction of a new office building in the city of Toronto eight storeys high, to be built of granite and limestone. In reading the article I found that the basement, the sub-basement and the first and second floors will be occupied by the bank's Toronto agency, its securities department, foreign exchange department and the industrial development bank. The other six floors will be rented as office space. Is this government going into the real estate business as well? I am quite sure that private business in metropolitan Toronto can provide all the necessary office space for business in that city. Here is further evidence of creeping or galloping socialism.
You know, Mr. Speaker, when I hear about the plans for national health insurance-and we certainly need it-I never hear any reference to the tremendous strides that have been made by our insurance companies to cover every possible person who can be covered under an actuarially sound scheme. In addition I have yet to hear of any reference to types of plans other than those of the insurance companies which in my province of Ontario are taking care of innumerable people. When we talk about national health insurance, let us see if we cannot provide a plan based on the practices of the companies now in the field. All they require is an undertaking by the government to ensure that those people who are unable to obtain insurance under the present group plans will be underwritten by the government. In all other respects I am quite sure they are prepared to carry out such a plan more efficiently than it would be done by some autocratic institution in Ottawa.
We have further evidence of the inroads of the government into business. You know,
244	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton m my business in dealing with air transport matters I am accustomed to receive references from the companies branch here saying that they think a certain application is satisfactory, but they must refer it for approval to the Department of Transport or the air transport board. I have received plenty of those letters, but recently I have been seeing more of them. The other day I received one in connection with a company's operation in the radio and television field. I now find as well that we cannot get into that business in Canada unless we refer it to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of Transport. This is effective control of business today by this government without any type of restrictive legislation.
This is the way the letters read:
However, I wish to mention that this case has been submitted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to the Department of Transport.
The other day I received a further example. The Minister of National Health and Welfare would be interested in this matter, because a group of people wanted to get together to make some surveys on the question of whether there was adequate hospital coverage in any particular area. What they had in mind were surveys of that kind. We therefore made an application to the companies branch to see whether we could incorporate that type of company. Oh, yes; I think we can incorporate it all right. But this is the type of letter we get back in this case:
. . . I wish to confirm that the object clauses of the petition for incorporation .	.	. have been
submitted to the Department of National Health and Welfare. Upon receipt of their advice I shall communicate with you.
Apparently the minister is going to reserve for himself all the survey rights in this type of thing. This procedure is just as effective as if we had passed an act which said, "You will go into this business only if we give you permission to do so." There is plenty of evidence of that.
What I say is this. Let us get out of business. Let us leave it to the people who have been trained for a lifetime to run businesses. As to those institutions that apparently we

cannot give back to business, let us, as sane and reasonable men, leave them alone. Let us not continue to snipe at them day after day in this house; I am sure that is a terrific blow to the morale of the people who spend their days working for them.
Let us devote the energies of this house to providing for the welfare of the people of this country. Let us see if we cannot increase the efficiency of our own departments so that some of the funds required for all those who wish increased old age pensions-and there are plenty of people in this country who need them-can be provided without taxing the people more and more.
Let us not think that we are too efficient in connection with the operation of our business; I refer to the government's business. I read an editorial in the "Office and Equipment News" of December. This editorial indicates that we do not want to listen to anybody who has any idea of improving the efficiency of our work. There is no place for them. We do not want anybody from outside to tell us whether there is available new equipment which will cut down the ever-increasing numbers whom the Minister of Finance must find the wherewithal to pay. No; we are satisfied to go on being empire builders. If you can add a few more to the payroll, your own job goes up in value.
I therefore direct your attention tonight, Mr. Speaker, to the great necessity of leaving to the people who know how to do it one phase of what has become an extremely important part of our daily routine here; and let us, on our side, turn our attention to efficiency in our own government departments.


Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock and move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Leduc (Verdun) the debate was adjourned.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Answer deposited with the Clerk of the house.)

Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Has the government of Canada been reimbursed for the sum of $60,000,000 loaned to China in 1946?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	If not, when will payment be made and what is the amount of interest to date?


Walter Edward Harris: 1.	The credit to China authorized under the Export Credits Insurance Act was $60,000,000. Advances made under the credit amounted to $51,037,091.15. These advances, together with accrued interest, were consolidated in 1947 and 1948. The total debt thus consolidated amounted to $52,215,997.48. Bonds bearing interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum and maturing serially on December 31 of each of the years 1948 to
Question
1977, were issued against the consolidated debt by the government of China. Only part of the loan has been reimbursed.
2.	Payments by the government of China have been made as follows:
Date of
payment	Principal	Interest
July 9/48	 $ 502,851.13
Jan. 11/49 ______ $1,755,997.48	502,851.13
Aug. 18/49	 277,325.16	1,071.31
Nov. 14/49	 756,900.00
May 3/50	 193,367.37
June 29/50	 756,557.34	569,508.55
Feb. 7/51 _________________________ 1,132,200.38
$2,789,879.98	$3,658,749.87
3.	(a) The time at which the government of China will resume payments on the loan is uncertain.
(b) The interest due but not paid on December 31, 1955 was $7,764,500.77. This amount does not include capitalized interest.

Wednesday, January 18, 1956